Anti-pronouns letter to companies

[Sunkisses]

This is an email a friend wrote to a law firm about how seeing pronouns in their staff emails makes her feel, as a woman. Apparently it may have worked as the male lawyer stopped putting pronouns in his signature. She wants other women to adapt it. She set up a gmail account in another name as she didn't want her email to result in negative treatment from the staff, but wanted the firm to know how statements of allegiance to gender ideology makes her feel.

Dear XX

I am a client of yours but I am sending this from an anonymous email account as I do not feel safe sending this from my real account, and fear it will have repurcussions on my treatment by your staff.

I wanted you to know that two of your staff who I deal with have she/her and he/him in their email signatures. I don't know if this is a standard practice and encouraged by XX, or if this is peculiar to these two staff.

I see the statement of pronouns in email signatures as a political statement on an extremely controversial and divisive issue. It makes me feel incredibly uncomfortable, alienated, and quite fearful that I may not receive fair treatment if I disagreed with your staff on this issue. I wanted XX to know how I feel about this, and how many people are likely to feel.

The two staff are clearly female and male, and there is absolutely no reason for them to add these pronouns to their email signature apart from to make a clear political statement on their position on a very divisive issue. I do not believe your staff should be inserting their political positions into their communications with clients, especially on uniquely divisive issues. You would not expect to see staff stating their position on Brexit in their email signatures, with "Leave" or "Remain" added under their contact details. Or people stating "Christ is Lord" or "Allahu Akbar". Or "Vaccinate now" or "Lift lockdown" added.

I profoundly disagree with gender identity ideology. I see it as regressive, sexist and homophobic. I do not regard it as progressive in the slightest. I regard much of gender identity activism as extremely authoritarian and a threat to freedom of thought, belief, and expression, and a threat to the rights of women and girls. I profoundly disagree with the attempts to redefine what a woman is, and what same-sex attraction is. From conversations I have, most people agree with me but many are too fearful of saying so as this issue is so controversial and trans activists are incredibly aggressive and target people in their workplaces.

When I see your staff acting as activists with political statements in their email signatures it does not make me feel comfortable at all, and makes me feel like they would not treat me fairly if they knew that I profoundly disagreed with their political views on the importance of women's rights. It makes me feel they oppose the rights of women and girls, and it makes me feel alienated and completely excluded.

I ask that XX reconsider whether it is appropriate for staff to have political statements such as pronouns in their email signatures, and whether staff should be using their workplace as a forum for their activism.

Yours, XX

What is the actual argument for how pronouns "help" trans people? If you're a man but want to be referred to as a woman you can choose a woman's name and put that in your signature. The only way I can see it would be helpful is if you wanted to be called e.g. Dave but be referred to as a woman so you would put Dave (she/her).

The only people I've seen using pronouns in email signatures and women with obviously female names e.g. Sophie (she/her). How is that helping anyone?

I regularly emailed a client at work who had an Indian name that I assumed was a man. I corresponded with (what I thought was) him for about 10 years without ever speaking on the phone. Found out that she is actually a woman. She still has no idea I thought she was a man for 10 years as it made absolutely no difference to our email correspondence.

Great email.

Dh works for a FTSE 250 and had “diversity and inclusion” training last week, which included the statement that “there are not only two sexes”.

He said he could hear me in his head saying “WTF?”

"If you think that (for example) a child playing with 'boys' toys and liking 'boys' hobbies makes them a boy that's fine but I don't see how it's Gender Critical."

I don't believe that. I know several people whose personalities don't conform to their sex or stereotypical gender identity in significant respects, and I believe that's irrelevant. Indeed I think it is potentially harmful for children and young adults to have their gender identity questioned because of that non-conformity. I know plenty of girls who like "boys hobbies" and it doesn't make them any less female. They are who they are.

But equally I know several trans people who are biologically one sex, but identity as another. They aren't trying to game the system or force an ideology on anyone. They are who they are too.

@KimikosNightmare

No but you might wear headgear which makes it pretty obvious. They are comparably obvious and both protected

What on earth has wearing spectacles (I assume that's what you are referring to) got to do with email signatures?

Apart from the fact when I reply to an email from timeisnotaline the fact you might wear specs is as irrelevant as whether you prefer he/she/ whatever- neither need to be referred to i.n my reply.

Religious headgear ie scarf , turban, yarmulke, I’d have thought that obvious! Just like it’s very visible in person. How did you leap to glasses given the discussion was on protected beliefs? Unless you’ve never worked with anyone from one of these backgrounds in which case your org/industry has much bigger diversity problems and should focus on that.

I know several trans people who are biologically one sex, but identity as another. They aren't trying to game the system or force an ideology on anyone. They are who they are too.

Oh sure, me too but that doesn't mean GI (in the Genderist sense) exists. You can respect people's right to be who they are without supporting the idea that gender is real.

There is a superb interview with Dr David Bell about the effect Genderism on GNC dysphoric children here:

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p09yk7dh

Religious headgear ie scarf , turban, yarmulke, I’d have thought that obvious! Just like it’s very visible in person. How did you leap to glasses given the discussion was on protected beliefs? Unless you’ve never worked with anyone from one of these backgrounds in which case your org/industry has much bigger diversity problems and should focus on that

And again what on earth relevance do any of these make to how to reply to an email.?

None of these are visible in an email and have zero bearing on how I would reply.

timeisnotaline

I don't reply to emails senders addressing them in the third person. The pronouns are irrelevant- as irrelevant as to whether the sender wears any religious signifier. And as mentioned giving concessions based on religious claims has potential to be discriminatory, but you airily waived that away.

How did you leap to glasses given the discussion was on protected beliefs?

Because previous posts referred to disability? You know another protected belief?

I 'd say about 10% of the emails I get have pronouns. In not a single case has it been relevant, because these are all people I have never met and never will. It's simply not possible for me to misgender them as I have no idea what sex/gender they are because I have never seen them. It's just a name on a page and I reply to the name and you/your.

The only possible reason for including the pronouns is to signal a belief in gender ideology. It's a strange and unnecessary thing to tell me, and for plenty of people it is also offensive.

www.statsforgender.org/pronouns/

This is why pronouns have a negative effect. It's harming children.

The only possible reason for including the pronouns is to signal a belief in gender ideology

No, I don't think it's necessarily that. It's unthinking virtue- signalling. As you say, we don't reply to email senders using 3rd case pronouns so the sender's sex, gender, gender identity is irrelevant.

If you are referring to one sender amongst multiple senders/ recipients you use that person's name.

As someone with a gender neutral name I know that it irks me when people who haven't met me assume my gender (usually incorrectly) in email chains (which are common in my line of work) by having my pronouns it avoids those awkward moments when I meet that staff member in person or having to correct them in emails

If it is that important to you, then why don't you just add your title to your name?
I would much rather my sex was irrelevant in pretty much all email conversations.

I really like this template, as well as some of the suggestions in the thread so I have taken a copy of it and will adapt it for my own needs.
It does put me off any companies who have pronouns in their email signatures. For some companies, I would categorically refuse to use them as I would assume they would not respect my sex-based rights.

@KimikosNightmare ?? Disability is not a belief. It is a protected characteristic, as is sex which is also not a belief.

[quote timeisnotaline]@KimikosNightmare ?? Disability is not a belief. It is a protected characteristic, as is sex which is also not a belief.[/quote]
I didn't say it was. What are you talking about?

I'm still waiting for an explanation as to I need to know the sex/ gender/ gender identity of the sender of an email before I can reply.

As someone with a gender neutral name I know that it irks me when people who haven't met me assume my gender (usually incorrectly) in email chains (which are common in my line of work) by having my pronouns it avoids those awkward moments when I meet that staff member in person or having to correct them in emails

Emails use names. Even in chains of emails if one wants to single out one person the person’s name will be used.

@KimikosNightmare I must have misunderstood this reply. I still do!
How did you leap to glasses given the discussion was on protected beliefs?

K: Because previous posts referred to disability? You know another protected belief?

And as to why you need someone’s gender identity before you can reply to an email, you don’t. You don’t need my industry qualification either or someone’s phone number or their full name or their office address, and I’d urge you to go ahead and reply to any work emails whether you are supplied with all of these or not.

It’s clearly not a work necessary part of an email. That is completely different from telling a company they shouldn’t let there employees put it there. I could do my work in trousers, but I can wear a skirt or dress too and clients complaining would get short shrift. Unnecessary is not an argument on its own, and I don’t think offensive and political will get you far. Everyone can send this email, but it seems worth noting that as a gender critical woman so more positively inclined to this message than many, who has done a long stint in the very client oriented industry of professional services, I would not give it much weight if I received it about my staff.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4388414-Leeds-now

For anyone who did not see this thread yesterday, this shows how politically loaded using pronouns with signatures is.

Is that aimed at me? I think having the personal, unpressured choice to use pronouns is fine. That is completely different to compelling pronouns, or like this story attempting to pressure people to use pronouns, both of which I would push back against strongly and unequivocally and there have been great examples given on this board of how to do that.

@timesnitaline
No, not aimed at you.
I have found this thread interesting on many counts.I mainly posted that link for anyone who might have missed it. I would like to have known about it if I hadn’t seen it.

But it does show how staff adding pronouns to signal their beliefs about themselves, or in order to show solidarity with a protected group or an alliance with a movement, might lead to staff who do not being perceived as being aggressively in opposition.

Ok no worries

And as to why you need someone’s gender identity before you can reply to an email, you don’t. You don’t need my industry qualification either or someone’s phone number or their full name or their office address, and I’d urge you to go ahead and reply to any work emails whether you are supplied with all of these or not

What a load of nonsense.

You don't need a phone number? You cannot be serious. Goodness only knows what line of work you're in if there is never any need to pick up the phone to speak to someone.

You don't need an address? Again- is the concept of delivering physical goods or papers one you are unfamiliar with?

You don't need full name-right so emails in your office get sent out with no names or first name only- but with pronouns?

You don't need "industry qualifications" - tell me in whatever line of work you're in you've never received an email from an accountant or a surveyor or a solicitor or a financial advisor? Because it doesn't matter what level of experience the person you are dealing with as long as you know their pronouns.

I think we are derailing. It is very obviously quite possible to reply to an email that doesn’t have a phone number in it . Similarly I can reply to an email without mailing a document (which is pretty rare these days in professional services, the only times I’ve ever done it are in response to rfps that specify physical delivery and provide the address). Yes of course you can’t call someone without a number, i have had to ask for it before because clients don’t have it in their email signature and no, no one does need to know my particular qualifications. It’s choice to put it in my signature. This is all entirely beside the point of the thread and getting ridiculous so I think I’ll bow out.

I'm finding this interesting because previously I had no really strong feelings about pronoun declarations provided they weren't compulsory. But now I'm thinking more deeply about it.

If a colleague wears a headscarf or crucifix then, as far as I'm concerned, that's an expression of their personal faith and there is no expectation on someone like me, who doesn't share that faith, to modify my behaviour in any way; it has zero effect on me.

If a colleague states their pronouns, and particularly if those pronouns differ from their sex, then there's an implicit but clear expectation that I should remember and use those pronouns. And if the statement is on a work email then there's a further implication that the company expects this too.

So not the same.

I'm still sceptical of the value of an anonymous, unsolicited email because I imagine most companies would spend about as much time reading it as they do a speculative CV, I.e a few seconds. But it's made me think and I like threads that do that.