Pronouns in email signatures - advice and arguments please

[AdultHumanFemale77777]

I work in a medium sized organisation and have influence in decisions around equality and diversity. I am due in a meeting in the next few weeks where we will discuss whether to suggest(/mandate?!) pronouns in email signatures. I would like to do some research and have well reasoned arguments as to why this is a terrible idea. So far I have - I don't fucking want to, it's performative wokeness at best and actively damaging to women. If we cared about trans identifying people that much we'd pay for proper counselling for dysmorphia.
I would be very grateful for any advice or suggestions for points I can bring to this meeting. Conscious of being branded xyz-phobic for wanting to stick up for actual women.

“ Insisting that employees put pronouns into their signature therefore leaves women who do not accept innate gender theory in a dilemma. They must either comply, aligning themselves with a political position they disagree with; or else reveal their political views in the workplace, which carries a risk of adverse consequences. We know that the popularity of innate gender theory means that those who take the contrary view may be visited with vile abuse, reported to their regulator, complained about to their employer, or even fired – so a woman who opposes innate gender theory may nevertheless feel obliged to comply through fear of losing her employment or being socially ostracised.”

@CardinalLolzy

ASUgarr - you said the reason that using the words isn't harmful is because they are used frequently. I disagree that high frequency of usage means that words can't be harmful.

Words have meaning beyond how often they are used.

Yes but how are pronouns harmful? Especially if you already have a feminine name or anything. How does including my pronouns harm me? In any way?

From here, for the OP legalfeminist.org.uk/2020/07/19/pronouns-compulsion-and-controversy/

ASugarr - so do you agree with me that 'how often a word is used' has no bearing on whether it's harmful or not?

Am I the only person who doesn't read email signatures or social media bios? I would never notice this, which would render it even more pointless.
Actually I know that I am not the only person. I have a few colleagues who have their working hours in their email signatures and complain that these are ignored regularly.

Here’s the crux of the matter - it’s not all about one person....

declare your pronouns

What an incomprehensible phrase.

@CardinalLolzy

ASugarr - so do you agree with me that 'how often a word is used' has no bearing on whether it's harmful or not?

Depending on the word.

Can you give me an example of a word where the level of harm changes depending on how frequently it's used?

@CardinalLolzy

Can you give me an example of a word where the level of harm changes depending on how frequently it's used?

I don't think it's relevant to the pronouns we are referring to here.

In the large business I work for the pronouns-in-signature debate has been left to choice (many men/visibly woke women apply them). If they mandated it I would suggest that I am non-binary and so unsure of my current pronouns, thus insinuating that they are discriminating against me by forcing me to choose my pronouns.

I don't think it's relevant to the pronouns we are referring to here.

You were the one arguing that because they are used all the time, they cannot be harmful.
Thank you for admitting that was not a relevant argument.

@CardinalLolzy

I don't think it's relevant to the pronouns we are referring to here.

You were the one arguing that because they are used all the time, they cannot be harmful.
Thank you for admitting that was not a relevant argument.

But how are they harmful?

But how are they harmful?
Which post of mine are you referring to here? The one about Yogyakarta principal 6?

@ASugarr

Harmful if someone just feels uncomfortable with labelling themselves.

Harmful if you have a gender neutral name and know you work in a misogynist organisation where women are treated differently then men.

Harmful if you don't believe in gender labels and are being compelled to use them.

Why do you object to pronoun disclosure being mandatory? If it's harmless to disclose them, what's the harm of someone saying they don't want to do so?

[quote youvegottenminuteslynn]@ASugarr

Harmful if someone just feels uncomfortable with labelling themselves.

Harmful if you have a gender neutral name and know you work in a misogynist organisation where women are treated differently then men.

Harmful if you don't believe in gender labels and are being compelled to use them.

Why do you object to pronoun disclosure being mandatory? If it's harmless to disclose them, what's the harm of someone saying they don't want to do so?[/quote]
I mean that's why they/them and neoprouns exist.

It's not really an argument but I spent 2 years without noticing I didn't have the organisation I worked with in my email signature (just the address) and nobody said anything.

The benefit of having a clear policy that you can put pronouns in your signature, but don't have to, is that when some people start doing it, other people don't think that they have to or that they have missed a meeting talking about it. So there's a good reason to say that people can do it if they like but it is a personal choice.

@ASugarr

Can you not accept that some people do not wish to engage in disclosing their pronouns?

Can you not accept that some people would find using they / them pronouns uncomfortable because they identify as she / her but don't wish to disclose that self identity to others?

I guess what I'm asking, genuinely, is whether you really believe this should be compelled and mandatory if people don't want to do it? What benefits are there for people who don't want to do it?

No, Asugarr, that's why 'I don't have any preferred pronouns so won't be putting them in my email signature' exists.

& as PP has clearly explained upthread, no sensible organisation will want the legal & HR nightmare of attempting to disclose information that a) they don't have b) they'd prefer to keep private or c) they recognise as prejudicial to their professional interests.

[quote youvegottenminuteslynn]@ASugarr

Can you not accept that some people do not wish to engage in disclosing their pronouns?

Can you not accept that some people would find using they / them pronouns uncomfortable because they identify as she / her but don't wish to disclose that self identity to others?

I guess what I'm asking, genuinely, is whether you really believe this should be compelled and mandatory if people don't want to do it? What benefits are there for people who don't want to do it?[/quote]
I don't agree that everyone should have to. However I believe there's nothing wrong in doing so.

• 'attempting to force people to disclose' - sorry, fat fingers.

I don't agree that everyone should have to. However I believe there's nothing wrong in doing so.

Thank you, so you agree if people want to do this then they can and if people don't want to, there's no need. I think that's how most people think, surely?

I don't think it's 'wrong' to add pronouns if you want to. I think it's wrong to make it mandatory, or push people to do it when they don't want to.

Glad you agree, genuinely.

@youvegottenminuteslynn

I don't agree that everyone should have to. However I believe there's nothing wrong in doing so.

Thank you, so you agree if people want to do this then they can and if people don't want to, there's no need. I think that's how most people think, surely?

I don't think it's 'wrong' to add pronouns if you want to. I think it's wrong to make it mandatory, or push people to do it when they don't want to.

Glad you agree, genuinely.

That's okay. My apologies if my comments seems to suggest otherwise. I don't think anyone should be made to disclose anything really when it comes to work. But I am also genuinely glad to hear you don't feel people that do display their pronouns are doing anything wrong or are wrong for doing so. I think that's part of the reason why companies are asking for everyone to do it, because it stops that judgment. However, I can see and understand that the judgment will still continue. It needs to be dealt with in other ways. Similarly with the sexism in the workplace situation. Even if I didn't display my pronouns, my name is very feminine so my pronouns being shown doesn't change that. But I am certainly an advocate for challenging sexist behavior in the workplace.

Third person pronouns don't belong to individuals. First person pronouns do. You, your.
Third person pronouns are for clarity about an individual or circumstances, not feelings. That's just basic grammar. There are thousands of English as an additional language classes up and down the country completing cloze tasks like this.

Mr. Bob hurt toe.
Jane said would be back today.

Good grammar uses the correct pronoun for modern English.
He/his for men
She/hers for women
They/theirs for plural
It/its for animals and objects

Why are people making the already arguably hardest language in the world, with our exceptions and regional variations, even harder to navigate?!

For woke points.

So the only way to stop "judgement" is by "displaying"?

"It needs to be dealt with in other ways".

What is it and what are the other ways you want "it" to be "dealt with"?