So my (large/global) employer have corporate logos, brandings, templates etc., including for the email signature template which had a line for pronouns, along side name, job title, company logo.
The pronouns policy would have proliferated and became company policy by default/stealth just from employees' use of the central corporate template. The template came with a guide for pronouns but did not say whether it was mandatory, encouraged, or optional. The pronouns line was just there in the signature, embedded, as if it is endorsed by the company. Internal FB discussions have since clarified that pronouns are optional, much to the disappointment of many who wanted to 'be kind', 'be inclusive' and encourage a 'safe environment'. Feeling (tentatively) emboldened by the recent news wrt Atonewall, I wrote to the group looking after corporate branding , who then added a line into the guide to say that use of pronouns in email signatures is entirely optional. This is what I wrote:
'I noticed that the latest company email signature template has embedded into it a line for pronouns, alongside the Job Title and the company logo. However, preferred pronouns are Optional not mandatory nor compelled/pressured .....Given that pronouns on emails are optional, there should be available two email signature template options, one with pronoun and one without.
The pronouns write up should make it explicitly clear that it is optional, at the moment it is silent on this.
My concern is that pronouns would become the Company policy by default, as it is embedded in the template as if it is mandatory/compulsory (with similar level of company endorsement as the logo itself).
This is potentially problematic and there are issues with highlighting the sender’s sex, and hence further perpetuating unconscious bias against women (especially in this male dominated environment). It could also potentially be seen as the company endorsing Atonewall’s approach on pronouns, and the latest news is that this activist group is under criticism for potentially misrepresenting the Law, and many companies are currently distancing themselves from the (once well respected) organisation.'
I hope I don't get into trouble. I would have liked to see 2 versions of email signatures, but having a sentence to say it is optional is still a small win I think.
Do we think the tide is finally turning, or will it get worse before it gets better?