Employee using pronouns. Help!

[OfNobody]

Hi all,

A friend of mine has just taken on a new recruit and he's just realised that she uses pronouns after her name on her email signature.

He'd love for her not to do that because he's GC himself (and has a very traditional client base) but can he ask her to stop? Is that in itself discrimination?

Would love to advise him but generally, all the work issues I see around this run in the opposite direction (employers asking employees for pronouns).

Any experience of this, or any insight into how he can politely request that she drop the pronouns without ending up on the front cover of The Guardian?

From what he said, she doesn't sound like a massive raging handmaiden. She's just fresh out of uni and obviously thinks this is the way to go.

Somebody else doing it has absolutely no bearing on you though.

I’ve explained more than once that the Ritual of the Stating of the Pronouns affects everyone because it redefines the words that are used to describe everyone in ways they may not agree with.

I am female but not of the womany feeling gender. It’s not a choice, I’m just not. I’m not trans, I’m not non-binary, I’m a female who doesn’t happen to have the thing that trans and cis women recognise in each other. I’m fine with them having it, I’m fine with me not having it.

I also use the pronouns she/her.

But when someone publicly takes ownership of those pronouns as indicators of womany feeling rather than female sex, which is inescapably what the Ritual of the Sharing of the Pronouns does, it means I can’t use them without incorrectly including myself in the womany feeling group, which means lying about who I am. But since I don’t identify as a trans man or non binary, I’m a bit stuck. This is what gets forced onto me not by my own actions but by the action of someone else appropriating my words for their own meanings.

Absolutely agree Cattenberg

This might be useful: womansplaceuk.org/2021/06/27/share-pronouns-at-work/?fbclid=IwAR0JisQu1f7wzA9cUavXpMA2ly8z792CfbaFb43a5hHlE7Czxkwk0os2U0E

Great link @ArabellaScott - thanks for sharing it.

@Cattenberg

I think plain email signature templates are the best.

Yes, to your name, job title, contact details and working hours (if part-time).

No to fancy fonts and different colours - they’re difficult for some people to read.
No to your qualifications - stop showing off.

No to pronouns - unless your recipient really needs to know them.
No to your religious or political beliefs.

”It’s a thing”
So too is racism.
All sorts of “things” have been “a thing” throughout history.

I haven't read the article yet but I can confirm that it is hurting women. I received an email at work with pronouns and I honestly felt it like a gut punch. I felt unwelcome and silenced and isolated. The alienation I felt was visceral and reflexive.
To me it signals an allegiance with or at least a sympathy for an ideology that I experience as sexist, misogynistic, homophobic and often racist. A movement that seeks to erode women's rights and break down their sexual boundaries.
Someone with pronouns in their email signature is not an ally to women.

Yes, exactly. It makes me feel very unsafe in the way I imagine a flag or religious symbol can make some people feel unsafe. It can be shrugged off as “just a word, just a flag, just a symbol, meaningful to the person who used it but nothing to do with you at all”, but it tells me something important about how the the person who chooses to stand behind it or the organisation that endorses it thinks about me.

If you're "gender critical" should nobody use any pronouns at all? That would be unusual.

Oh Arabella, don’t delete that from your signature. I think it is a wonderful statement.

@pheebumbalatti

If you're "gender critical" should nobody use any pronouns at all? That would be unusual.

As I said earlier, (and have thought for years, way before any of this Pronoun Ritual stuff), I would like English speakers to make gender neutrals pronouns the default, and only use gendered pronouns when the sex/gender of the person is relevant.

@Blibbyblobby

I haven't read the article yet but I can confirm that it is hurting women. I received an email at work with pronouns and I honestly felt it like a gut punch. I felt unwelcome and silenced and isolated. The alienation I felt was visceral and reflexive. To me it signals an allegiance with or at least a sympathy for an ideology that I experience as sexist, misogynistic, homophobic and often racist. A movement that seeks to erode women's rights and break down their sexual boundaries. Someone with pronouns in their email signature is not an ally to women.

Yes, exactly. It makes me feel very unsafe in the way I imagine a flag or religious symbol can make some people feel unsafe. It can be shrugged off as “just a word, just a flag, just a symbol, meaningful to the person who used it but nothing to do with you at all”, but it tells me something important about how the the person who chooses to stand behind it or the organisation that endorses it thinks about me.

All of this.

And additionally, even leaving aside my personal views on it, it's a highly contentious subject that any business would be sensible to give the most widest berth possible. If you don't agree its contentious, note the 234 messages on this thread since 3pm this afternoon, and the amount of disagreement and strength of feeling.

@BatmansBat

Oh Arabella, don’t delete that from your signature. I think it is a wonderful statement.

I appreciate the sentiment, but I don’t think it’s suitable for a work auto signature. Perhaps if you are self employed and it reflects the image you want to present to clients.

As I said earlier, (and have thought for years, way before any of this Pronoun Ritual stuff), I would like English speakers to make gender neutrals pronouns the default, and only use gendered pronouns when the sex/gender of the person is relevant.

I agree with the sentiment, but don’t think it would ever happen, so I think it’s best to just treat she/he as neutral pronouns that don’t convey somebody’s inner essence.

Some people, for some reason, find that terribly offensive.

Might it be because it is sexist and hate speech? Have you read this thread? Plenty of explanations of why this is so if you're interested.

There are plenty of people who'd respond positively to pronouns in an email, and, I suspect, an even larger raft of people who DGAF either way.
I expect there are many more people who do GAF than people who don't. I agree that there are people who respond positively if you put "I think black people should not be in positions of power" but any right thinking person would be horrified at that. The fact that a minority would be pleased does not mean we should accept it.

Are you telling me that you would think it reasonable for an atheist to be offended simply by a believer stating that they subscribed to a particular faith?
I think a better equivalent would be "non-believers are heathens and destined for hell" tbh. The power that gender ideologists are holding right now is massive. They are using that power to erode women's rights. It's scary.

@merrymouse

As I said earlier, (and have thought for years, way before any of this Pronoun Ritual stuff), I would like English speakers to make gender neutrals pronouns the default, and only use gendered pronouns when the sex/gender of the person is relevant.

I agree with the sentiment, but don’t think it would ever happen, so I think it’s best to just treat she/he as neutral pronouns that don’t convey somebody’s inner essence.

I know. It’s such a shame. All that energy going into persuading people that the “kind”, “inclusive” thing to do is to explicitly state gendered pronouns, something that when you think about it properly can only ever be an act of division.

If only all that energy and goodwill had been put into promoting neutral pronouns we might have got somewhere genuinely progressive!

Joking aside, this is too contentious to have on a work email. If we start to put political statements, which this is, then where does it stop?

Why is gender the only thing we need to acknowledge in an email signature? Why shouldn’t we also acknowledge that we are anti racism, anti crime, for equality or whatever? Or fundraise for our favourite cancer charity?

I think the only thing that should be in a work signature is name, department, company and title. And with title I don’t mean “Mrs/Dr/Mr”, I mean Director, Vice President, etc. Those titles help clients to know the seniority of the person they are dealing with so that they can assess their gravitas within the organisation with some accuracy.

I think it is weird that if all things to put on an email, some women here are arguing for emphasising their female sex. Putting she/her is highly likely to make it worse for a biological woman due to sexism. For the people who want she/her, do you work in high powered, male dominated jobs?

Oh noes! A young woman with a mind of her own that hasn't been poisoned by bigotry yet! Heaven forfend!

It should be fine to use whatever pronouns you like, in the person's absence. Pronouns are there for clarity and speed, not moral judgement of the person's innate self.

Being male, or being female, aren't inherently bad things. There's no need to take offence at people getting it wrong occasionally.

I’ve explained more than once that the Ritual of the Stating of the Pronouns affects everyone because it redefines the words that are used to describe everyone in ways they may not agree with.

I don't agree though.
It does not affect me, however much you try to tell me that it does.
Stating of the Pronouns (seeing as we're capitalising it thought I would too) is a personal thing.
I choose not to do it personally, but I have no issue whatsoever with other people doing it.

Oh noes! A young woman without a mind of her own that has been poisoned by bigotry already! Heaven forfend!

One of the major implications of the pronoun ‘thing’ is that it’s made necessary only by people who self-identify as the gender opposite to the one that people perceive them to be.

In practice almost everyone presents clearly (usually by appearance and/or name) as female or male. It makes things easy. In any setting with a lot of people it is unrealistic to remember everyone’s preferred pronouns. Even if there weren’t a large number of them: can you even remember the diverse range of “pronouns” even when they’re not matched to a range of individuals?

Transwomen until recently all used symbols of femininity (dresses, mascara etc) to signal they were a she and to offset masculine physical features.

Requiring pronouns is therefore tailored around ‘transwomen’ who deliberately make zero effort (‘no exceptions’) to pass as female. It demands that women announce to the world that which was previously obvious in person (or possibly concealed remotely) in order to satisfy a handful of activists.

@Quaggars

I’ve explained more than once that the Ritual of the Stating of the Pronouns affects everyone because it redefines the words that are used to describe everyone in ways they may not agree with.

I don't agree though.
It does not affect me, however much you try to tell me that it does.
Stating of the Pronouns (seeing as we're capitalising it thought I would too) is a personal thing.
I choose not to do it personally, but I have no issue whatsoever with other people doing it.

It doesn’t affect you because presumably you identify as either trans or cis. It affects me because I don’t. You do you but don’t force your narrow gender definitions on to me just because you are ok with the. It’s regressive and offensive.

I honestly think that sex/gender doesn’t matter once you have gotten to know the people you work with. Some are brilliant, some are useless.

But as someone who once was the only woman trying to lead a meeting of men (all older than I was) in a Southern European country many years ago, I can say that sexism was rife. Some people were open about the fact that they were terribly disappointed that my male colleague couldn’t attend.

It took me about two -four weeks to prove myself and they ended up my best client. After that time, they would rather deal with me than even my male boss. However, anyone who thinks that emphasising that you are a woman to a lot men you never met is, in my opinion, a fool.

any right thinking person would be horrified at that

The example you've used would be illegal as it would (rightly) fall foul of anti-discrimination legislation.

'Right thinking' in the context of gender-ideology is not defined in the same way. Rather, there are opposing viewpoints. 'Right thinking' doesn't mean 'people who agree with me' - as I'm sure you know.

@peadarm

One of the major implications of the pronoun ‘thing’ is that it’s made necessary only by people who self-identify as the gender opposite to the one that people perceive them to be.

In practice almost everyone presents clearly (usually by appearance and/or name) as female or male. It makes things easy. In any setting with a lot of people it is unrealistic to remember everyone’s preferred pronouns. Even if there weren’t a large number of them: can you even remember the diverse range of “pronouns” even when they’re not matched to a range of individuals?

Transwomen until recently all used symbols of femininity (dresses, mascara etc) to signal they were a she and to offset masculine physical features.

Requiring pronouns is therefore tailored around ‘transwomen’ who deliberately make zero effort (‘no exceptions’) to pass as female. It demands that women announce to the world that which was previously obvious in person (or possibly concealed remotely) in order to satisfy a handful of activists.

I agree with this, in the real world if I meet a man in a dress with long hair and make up calling himself Janet then I’m going to use she/her, whether I agree with that or not because I’m not going to be rude and hurt someone’s feelings.