Right… pronouns

[Pronounsworkemail]

NC for this. Well, my friend has no issues with people putting pronouns on their emails. But my friend has joined a new work place and was sent a suggested email signature which includes pronoun.

Friend has no issues others doing so on their email, there is inclusivity and all, but are people being forced to put pronouns on their work email signature. What does the law say on this? Friend is stuck and has not set up the signature yet. Where is choice in all this?

Surely this died a death a while ago along with being asked to state your pronouns during introductions. The few people at work who still have pronouns stated in their email signature seem to have it because they simply haven’t updated their signature in five years…

Assuming they use ‘She/ her’, maybe they are making a point, and I wouldn’t blame them really.

My brilliant old boss used to say, “I’ll take my chances being misgendered” when declining to share her pronouns.

Including pronouns makes those who want to be they/their feel more comfortable and accepted. Whether or not you think those people are silly, it's just human kindness.
If some people include pronouns in their signature and others don't, then people may infer things from whether they do or don't. I'd prefer a policy that everyone does, and then people are not labelled as woke/not-woke.

Actually it doesnt, because their pronouns may or may not match their actual sex.

Just delete OP. Can’t believe some orgs are still doing this.

Yes, my thoughts too, it can be helpful and otherwise really doesn't matter. I feel very strongly about men in women's spaces or women's sport but they can call themselves what they like afaic.

If someone doesn’t feel comfortable stating their pronouns why should they be forced to? What about kindness to them?

I think it’s really helpful. Over the years, I’ve worked with loads of people who I have no idea from their names if they’re a man or a woman. Especially in this age of remote working when we often never see people face to face. You can’t even guess. I had a guy in IT who I assumed was a woman for about a year because he was Dutch and to me his name sounded feminine. Cue: big shock when I found out he was a man and I’d been calling him she for as long as I’d been working with him. I also work with lots of people for whom English isn’t their first language. It’s very helpful so none of us have to guess. I really can’t get worked up over something so utilitarian.

No.
If you’re going to do something outside the norm, at least have the courage of your convictions and do NOT expect everyone else to do likewise so you can hide in a crowd 🙄

You do actually get that those proclaiming she/her pronouns may not actually be female (and vice versa), right?

You sound a bit confused.

And that's OK. I know how they'd like to be referred to. It doesn't change their sex.

If by good at this, you mean famously transphobic and anti-'woke', yes, you're correct.

I work in a place where if you don't have your pronouns as part of your signature you are immediately thought of as old.

I’d better be brief (fat chance) or I’ll derail things, but essentially it’s about imitating the French way.
One courtesy title for all adult women, à la ‘Madame’.
But at that point we are already in the weeds because, unless we actually literally copied France and use Madam (which j’adore, by the way) I can see humongous fights over relinquishing Mrs in favour of a universal ‘Ms’ from certain cadre of married women. “I am married and proud of it!”
A simple solution suggests itself: ALL adult women to be ‘Mrs’ , and for that title to lose its association with marriage entirely.
I rather like this idea, too.

But the urgency is to abandon the multiple choices of ‘Ms Mrs and Miss’ at every bloody juncture. We are forced to indicate a choice, and this is where Ms lets us down, in my opinion.
(It’s also my opinion that this bloody choice hurdle is intended to put halt to our gallop, trivial though it is. It still betokens an attitude of patriarchal permission, deep down. No man ever need think about his title, as being male suffices to ‘categorise’ him. We women however have to vote, to declare ourselves, so to speak)

Anyway to continue,,,,Ms was intended to be a neutral, featureless title, giving nothing away, but even now, over fifty years on, it is still regarded by far too many as a badge of Dworkinist Lefties! Fine by me as I’m not far off, but it’s an inaccurate generalisation for most who use it
My issue with it therefore is that by choosing it, for whatever reason we have, our choice still leaks out enough inferred data for assumptions (and misconceptions) to be made, and it really is not good enough.
We should not be scrutinised AT ALL, beyond the one basic bit of info, just like ‘Mr’ says nowt but ‘male adult’.

So I re-attached myself to ‘Miss’ long ago just to be bloody-minded, really.
I don’t give a damn if people think ‘Ah…a typical Havisham!’, or if it evokes pity or even anger, as all three titles piss me right off anyway.
(Little Miss Angry was a cartoon character, wasn’t she? 😂)

But wouldn’t it be glorious if we were all Madam Smith, Jones, O’Houlihan etc?

Hey I’m sorry for ranting incoherently, but one nudge and I’m off, where this 🐝+👒 is concerned.

Why do you need to know someone's sex? Do you need to know their skin colour? If not, why is sex any different?

It will soon be the opposite.

see. They were also concerned about that. Same as not adding actual 😊.

Their name is properly a woman’s name. Think Charlotte, Isabella,. It’s even simpler but absolutely a woman’s name.

Obviously, a trans person can choose a woman’s name, which is not a problem.

They have also seen some people have not included pronounced to their emails. As it is, this was on their first day and we’re trying to follow the guidance given to them. Other thing they also picked up was the suggested out of Office which came across as abrupt and cold, it’s not being adopted word for word. With the usual ‘thank you for your email’ being added at the beginning by various people.

The only person I saw had them and I felt that was reasonable was a team leader. If a team leader feels as part of their job of making everyone feel inclusive, all power to them. They’re not young. And they also make the point of using Whatsapp, and adding smiles, but the last two are quite obvious as they do look like they are trying a bit too much to fit in themselves.

Part of the joy of not being given an A o Z on everyone you work with upon joining the organisation, is discovering those people. I had the most JOY of discovering that somebody I was working alongside with was a grandad. Think about somebody in their 70s, who every now and then comes back to help his old team, sometimes lasting three months sometimes six months and then disappearing again in. So there he was on our call with his hair nicely brushed, his best suit and tie, and it was a joy to see him online. Even his work reflected proper etiquette, the desire to help others, and especially the desire to help those in the community who needed his help. That was really nice. And everyone loved him. Including the outsiders he was helping. They listened to him and to his sensible advice.

Why the apostrophes?

Sam's what?

Alex's what?

Add all protected characteristics. After all if they’re hot on DEI they won’t want people to regard some characteristics as inferior to others surely…?

titchy (she/her; female; married; heterosexual; not pregnant; atheist; white European; non-disabled, pushing 60)

Does kindness just flow in one direction for you?

Pronouns can be helpful when names are unclear. I work with a Kieron - she is a girl- and gets misgendered all the time in emails by people in our other offices who assume she is male. We don't do pronouns in our email signatures but I can see that it might actually be useful.

It's probably advantageous to Kieron to be assumed to be male, sadly.

There is no need for pronouns if you don't know someone's sex, you just use their name to refer to them up until you find out what sex they are.