The look at me of pronouns

[Ritascornershop]

Recently I’ve had two interactions that have startled me. One was with legal aid (I’m in Canada) where the young lawyer rang me and said “Hello this is Thomas from xx, my practice is x and my pronouns are he/him.” Just in case I thought someone with a male voice and whose name was Thomas might like me, when speaking to him, to refer to him in the third person as she/her. I laughed and pointed out that as I was speaking directly to him, his pronouns wouldn’t be relevant.

The other interaction was after I’d written my member of parliament’s office asking for an answer on something I couldn’t get a Ministry to answer me on. 3 months later I finally got a reply suggesting I contact that Ministry 🙄 and signing off “Benjamin Lastname, he/him, Useless Twat, Your MP’s office”.

I replied telling him it was useless information that should not have taken 3 months to cough up, and I didn’t care what his pronouns were and I wasn’t going to proffer mine as doing so for women tended to increase sexism in professional interactions.

Is this as rampant in the UK? It just seems so unprofessional and so “look at me!” I’ve no interest in how they hope people refer to them when they’re not there, I just want answers to my questions that they are qualified to provide.

Because its the way language is. You don’t refer to people by their star sign, hair colour of health do you? Why the push to change it?

But surely the fact that I am referred to as ‘she’ reflects that I am seen as a woman in social terms, it’s not dependent on my biology.

Do you have similar concerns about this putting women in a very awkward position re: sexual discrimination in the workplace?

You're seen as a woman "in social terms" because you are a woman in biological terms.

If you're not a woman in biological terms, then it's highly unlikely that anyone sees you as a woman at all in any terms whatsoever. Hence the coercive pressure on people to adopt "your" pronouns and pretend you're something you're not so as to avoid a HR incident.

All yourself what you like. Pronouns are sex based. Girl babies aren’t aborted in the 000s on the basis of their feelings. Rapists don’t choose their victims in how they describe themselves ;and they always know what we’d they target).

So why change to a ‘how I feel’ descriptor? Because how you feel can change. We’d can’t.

Oh my - autocorrect working overtime today (but you get the gist).

@Helen8220

Because its the way language is. You don’t refer to people by their star sign, hair colour of health do you? Why the push to change it?

But surely the fact that I am referred to as ‘she’ reflects that I am seen as a woman in social terms, it’s not dependent on my biology.

No.

You’re referred to as she because you’re a biological woman.

I’ve never in my life met anyone whose pronouns aren’t obvious…what kind of organisation do you work for where it’s often - your word - not obvious?

As I said, this is in the context of meetings related to the LGBT+ network, for example there was one recently specifically focused on people with non-binary sexuality or gender - eg bisexual or pansexual, and non-binary or gender queer. Those types of meetings tend to have a higher than average proportion of people attending who you couldn’t reliably guess their pronouns.

Because they have chosen it. They may well choose based on feelings, not bio.

If you are a woman, you will have been referred to as she since the moment you were born.

@Helen8220

I’ve never in my life met anyone whose pronouns aren’t obvious…what kind of organisation do you work for where it’s often - your word - not obvious?

As I said, this is in the context of meetings related to the LGBT+ network, for example there was one recently specifically focused on people with non-binary sexuality or gender - eg bisexual or pansexual, and non-binary or gender queer. Those types of meetings tend to have a higher than average proportion of people attending who you couldn’t reliably guess their pronouns.

Okay.

I don’t understand why you need to announce your sexuality in the context of a work meeting. Don’t you just go to work…to work?? Why is anyone interested in what their colleagues choose to do in private, outside work and with whom?

This is what I don’t understand.

Do you have similar concerns about this putting women in a very awkward position re: sexual discrimination in the workplace?

In my workplace I don’t think it’s really an issue - women are over represented at most levels, and equally represented at the top level (and in fact our top person is a woman), and reports of sex/gender based discrimination are low.

More generally I’d be surprised if pronouns in email signatures made a significant difference to levels of sex/gender based discrimination against women - as many people have pointed out, the majority of people have names that indicate their sex/gender. Also, surely most of the people who have the position or power to discriminate against us are people we’ve interacted with other than by email?

As I said, this is in the context of meetings related to the LGBT+ network, for example there was one recently specifically focused on people with non-binary sexuality or gender - eg bisexual or pansexual, and non-binary or gender queer. Those types of meetings tend to have a higher than average proportion of people attending who you couldn’t reliably guess their pronouns.

It astonishing that people at work have time to waste sitting around in a special meeting to explain their personal take on grammer. It's no wonder diversity and inclusion is held in such contempt.

@Fitt

As I said, this is in the context of meetings related to the LGBT+ network, for example there was one recently specifically focused on people with non-binary sexuality or gender - eg bisexual or pansexual, and non-binary or gender queer. Those types of meetings tend to have a higher than average proportion of people attending who you couldn’t reliably guess their pronouns.

It astonishing that people at work have time to waste sitting around in a special meeting to explain their personal take on grammer. It's no wonder diversity and inclusion is held in such contempt.

It’s also mind-blowingly self absorbed.

I don’t understand why you need to announce your sexuality in the context of a work meeting. Don’t you just go to work…to work?? Why is anyone interested in what their colleagues choose to do in private, outside work and with whom?

Well, it’s obviously important that people generally feel comfortable to be open in the workplace as far as they want to regarding, eg, if they have a same sex partner. I’ve heard from gay and lesbian colleagues who are a bit older (eg in their 50s) who did not always feel able to be ‘out’ at work, and how that distanced them from their colleagues and made work a less happy place to be.

The reason we (ie the LGBT+ network) hold events specifically to allow people to talk about their experiences as being bisexual, non-binary etc is because surveys show they are more likely to face discrimination now than gay or lesbian colleagues.

Well luckily I work in an organisation that thinks it’s important to foster an inclusive environment for everyone, and people involved in the networks (LGBT+, gender, race, disability and others) work very hard - often in their personal time - organising events that help people to understand the experiences of those who are different from them.

If you are a woman, you will have been referred to as she since the moment you were born

True, and I think this is part of the problem. Why does it follow from the fact that a person is born without a penis that they should be referred to in a particular way, different from those born with penises? I just don’t see why it’s necessary. If we got rid of gendered pronouns surely that would help reduce sex/gender based discrimination.

@Helen8220

I don’t understand why you need to announce your sexuality in the context of a work meeting. Don’t you just go to work…to work?? Why is anyone interested in what their colleagues choose to do in private, outside work and with whom?

Well, it’s obviously important that people generally feel comfortable to be open in the workplace as far as they want to regarding, eg, if they have a same sex partner. I’ve heard from gay and lesbian colleagues who are a bit older (eg in their 50s) who did not always feel able to be ‘out’ at work, and how that distanced them from their colleagues and made work a less happy place to be.

The reason we (ie the LGBT+ network) hold events specifically to allow people to talk about their experiences as being bisexual, non-binary etc is because surveys show they are more likely to face discrimination now than gay or lesbian colleagues.

I’m in the age group you refer to. I have worked in many places for the last 25 years or so (bar time off with babies) and have had many gay colleagues. It’s never been an issue work-wise, as far as I am aware, that they happen to have a same-sex partner, and neither has it been relevant to their job/ability to do a job. Their sexuality has as much relevance, work wise, as their hair colour/preference for tea or coffe/whether they have a pet/whatever random feature of their personality or personal life you may choose, has on their job ie zero.

What has caused this huge, societal shift whereby sexuality has to be DISCUSSED in the workplace?

@Helen8220

Do you have similar concerns about this putting women in a very awkward position re: sexual discrimination in the workplace?

In my workplace I don’t think it’s really an issue - women are over represented at most levels, and equally represented at the top level (and in fact our top person is a woman), and reports of sex/gender based discrimination are low.

More generally I’d be surprised if pronouns in email signatures made a significant difference to levels of sex/gender based discrimination against women - as many people have pointed out, the majority of people have names that indicate their sex/gender. Also, surely most of the people who have the position or power to discriminate against us are people we’ve interacted with other than by email?

So no.

There's a wealth of evidence about women being sexually discriminated in the workplace and women with 'gender neutral' names have reported that they are treated differently when the person they are interacting with becomes aware that they are a woman. Earlier in this thread, I posted a link to an article written by a man who mistakenly sent out emails with his female work signature attached who was shocked at how differently he was treated.

Sexual discrimination is also massively under- reported as women don't want to make a fuss, jeopardise their employment or think that's just 'how it is' in that environment.

There was research mentioned on here a while ago where it was shown that if women are reminded that they are women before a test or examination, they perform differently.

But you know, it's only women right?

Correction - female colleague's work signature

@Helen8220

If you are a woman, you will have been referred to as she since the moment you were born

True, and I think this is part of the problem. Why does it follow from the fact that a person is born without a penis that they should be referred to in a particular way, different from those born with penises? I just don’t see why it’s necessary. If we got rid of gendered pronouns surely that would help reduce sex/gender based discrimination.

I don’t know where to begin with this.

Perhaps we live on different planets.

It’s the way our language is, and it’s the same for many languages. You may not like it, but that’s tough. That’s life.

Why does it follow from the fact that a person is born without a penis that they should be referred to in a particular way, different from those born with penises?

Blimey. Females aren't born "without a penis". I can't think of a more reductive way to describe us frankly.

We are not being referred to as different to men, we are being referred to as one of two equal human sexes. You are investing "she" as being "different" to the normal "he" in the way you write about it.

@Helen8220

If you are a woman, you will have been referred to as she since the moment you were born

True, and I think this is part of the problem. Why does it follow from the fact that a person is born without a penis that they should be referred to in a particular way, different from those born with penises? I just don’t see why it’s necessary. If we got rid of gendered pronouns surely that would help reduce sex/gender based discrimination.

It's not the name of the pronouns that cause discrimination, it's the power imbalance between men and women.

The only way, in your world, to eliminate that, is to disguise everybody. Which doesn't tackle any of it.

They used to have unisex pronouns in Chinese, but made the decision to change it in, I think, the 1920s or so. The pronouns still sound the same, but are written differently for men and women.

Those types of meetings tend to have a higher than average proportion of people attending who you couldn’t reliably guess their pronouns.

Oh I bet you could reliably guess their sex.

because surveys show they are more likely to face discrimination now than gay or lesbian colleagues.

In what sense? What is this discrimination that they face that isn't for being same sex attracted as part of their sexuality? And what discrimination do "non binary" people face, exactly?