The idea is that if everybody puts their preferred pronouns on email sigs etc. then it makes things more comfortable for trans and NB people who need to state their pronouns to avoid being 'misgendered' because their colleagues have eyes.
This would be fine if it actually didn't affect others but it does. To quote PPs:
She's performing an anti-feminist action, of normalising a practice that risks, for women, invoking implicit bias against them, by drawing irrelevant attention to her sex.
I argued it on the grounds of stereotype threat and confirmation bias (wasn’t called that in 1995 but both concepts existed) and i won my argument. It stopped being a requirement very quickly.
It very much affects me, I often deliberately use a gender neutral version of my name in emails when dealing with people who haven't met me as it makes a big and positive difference in how helpful respondents are. I wish it wasn't so but it is.
It’s been proven that when people think they are dealing with a man (or think it could be a man) that they behave very differently to when it’s a woman. So I agree that reinforcing femininity and agreement with feminine gender-norms (which you surely do if you think the body doesn’t matter and that how you feel is the important thing) will increase the risk of prejudice.
I deliberately use a shortened version of my name which is unisex. As I work in tech, I am assumed to be male and it makes my job easier to be assumed to be male.
I too work in a male-dominated industry and took to not having my first name in my signature block (just initial) to avoid sexual harassment and assumptions of my skill or ability. While it is quite obvious what sex I am when you see me in person email interactions do not convey my sex and I want to keep it that way thank you very much.
When I was interviewed they didn't even know my name, nor my age, no info where I could be discriminated against ... Somehow it's as if highlighting it makes it worse and bring attention to something that really shouldn't matter.
etc. etc. and these are just some objections related to he protected characteristic of sex. Other objections have been raised related to the protected characteristic of disability and, if Maya's tribunal is successful we can also add objections related to the PC of religion or belief (compelled speech etc.).
Harassment in the Equality Act is defined as unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic which has the purpose or effect of violating someone's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them.
This is prohibited conduct, whether there is an intention to harass or not.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26
If I was told I had to put my pronouns on my work email sig, or even if it was just 'strongly encouraged', I would feel that this was unwanted conduct related to the PC of sex, which had the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile and offensive environment for me.
If I was treated badly because I made a complaint on these grounds I would also consider myself to have been victimised. This is also prohibited conduct in the Equality Act.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/27
There may also be a case for indirect discrimination because a rule saying everyone must state their pronouns on their email sig will obviously have a worse effect on women. A defence to indirect discrimination is if it's a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim. It might be a legitimate aim to make trans and nb people feel more comfortable but the means are very clearly disproportionate.
You don't need to have been at a workplace for two years to bring a discrimination case. You have rights from day 1 (actually during the recruitment process as well).