We've had the inevitable pronouns email at work...

[OgdensGoneNutFlake]

As above, I've had the virtue-signalling pronouns email at work. It's optional to put your preferred pronouns (which is the option I will be taking) but its the sort of environment that it will be noticed, and possibly commented on.

There was a thread a while back I can't seem to find that had short, non-inflamatory replies for why I won't be adding my he/she/zom/zur/zee's after my name- can anyone point me in the right direction of it? Or give me some safe-for-work replies to disengage from the conversation. I've only been there a few months and I don't really have the energy to be fighting battles with people who won't be listening anyway.

You are creating an issue when there isn't one...

If it is optional, you simply don't include them in your email address. No one is asking you to justify it.

This is what we did in our workplace.

We updated our email signature with a new logos/design and staff were asked to all use the same template for the email, with one thing being optional: pronouns. No drama and no need to explain why if people leave them out.

I think that is the best option for most workplaces: give people choice and respect their decision.

Who benefits from that?

They sent that out a week after the Scotland clusterfuck?

I'd respond and say that I found the email incredibly triggering given the recent events where a convicted double rapist is referred to as "she/her" in the news, despite the legal definition of rape.

Make the sender feel uncomfortable.

I was amazed how few people in my fairly woke organisation have bothered with email pronouns despite several all-org emails "reminding" us of the option and "how easy" it is to show our allyship in this way.

But what if your allyship is to your fellow women rather than a very, very few trans people - who may not even work in your organisation? It's made out that this is all neutral, but it is not: it's a political and social endorsement - a deliberate way to coerce you into nailing your (actually, their) colours to your mast.

As somebody so brilliantly put it in another thread, the inch you give is by using non-grammatically-standard (i.e. based on sex) pronouns and then the mile they end up taking is rapists in women's prisons.

Anyway, I don't see why it helps if everybody is expected to get in the way with something that only affects a very small number of people. If you have 100 people in an organisation, of which 49 are 'standard' 'he/him' men, 50 are 'standard' 'she/her' women and one person who uses non-standard pronouns for their sex, surely it's much easier for everybody to just concentrate on the needs/requests for the person with non-standard 'requirements'?

If you had a blind employee, you wouldn't go to the hassle of asking/assessing everybody there as to what adjustments they may require to help make everything accessible to them with their good eyesight, and what provision all their non-existent guide dogs will need. You wouldn't individually assess all the adjustments required to allow Ramadan observance or daily prescribed prayer times for every employee, including the 98% who aren't Muslim. Catering forms always ask if you have any allergies or requirements - they don't ask every person to state every food that they are NOT allergic to and/or WILL happily eat.

People who insist on non-standard pronouns need to accept that they are asking to be a special case. However much they may wish to normalise the pretence of people commonly using non-grammatical pronouns, they need to accept that the vast majority of people use one of the standard two - exactly as you'd expect - without thinking or caring twice about it; and it's silly and attention-seeking to waste everybody's time and push your agenda by asking Claire to confirm the obvious fact that that she's a she and Tim to confirm that he's a he, just so you can say "Oooh, well I'M a 'they'!"

I was horrified to see this on Facebook this morning - very little support in comments which is refreshing to see.

Do I work with you? Same thing happened in my organisation 😂

I’m suprised at how many people are doing this and not questioning it. I seem to be the only one at my work place who hasn’t done it. I keep hoping nobody has noticed.

LiftWithS · Yesterday 21:49

Just say you're non-Joinery.

Unless she works for a cabinet maker!

Anyway, ask if they realise that having women put their pronouns in emails results in poorer treatment by clients and colleagues. There's a thread about it, a woman used male pronouns for a couple of weeks and was accorded all respect.

When she reverted to female, she was patronised and insulted. It's a well known phenomenon.

Those badges are very non-inclusive - unless they're just three of hundreds available for people to take whichever one(s) they believe apply to them.

What about people who use She/Him/Their or They/Them/Hers pronouns - or Rod/Jane/Freddy, Davedee/Dozybeaky/Mickandtich, Bink/Bonk/Badonkadonk (might need a bigger badge for that one); or those people who like to alternate between different pronouns based on frequency of use or which 'mode' they say they are in at any particular time?

Clearly a very 'bigoted, exclusive' person who came up with those.

Before I left my job this was requested of us politely as a kind thing to do that costs nothing. I ignored it, but several of the team I headed didn't. If asked I would have shrugged and said in an informal manner "I don't want to". I don't think that would have been challenged, although assumptions would likely have been made about my character. But I care more about not lieing than being liked.

Just say, ‘oh no thank you, I believe that to be a political matter, and I won’t be making a political statement in my email signature.’

I love your user name 😁

I was asked to do it in some diversity and inclusion training (on teams). Several times. Simply ignored although I noted most people did it and everyone's pronouns matched their actual sex. So rather pointless really.

Simply ignored although I noted most people did it and everyone's pronouns matched their actual sex. So rather pointless really.

Considering that 'catgender' and the like has already started to gain some (so far) limited ground, I can't help genuinely wondering if, eventually, everybody will be expected to clarify in their email signature (and wear a badge) stating what species they are/identify as.

After all, it makes so much more 'sense' for billions of humans to emphasise that to people in their every email rather than for the very few people who think they are cats to simply tell incredulously open-mouthed colleagues that, lest they be 'phobic bigots' who just non-inclusively assume humanity.

Just don't add them and don't explain.

If asked say "I would rather not"

If pushed with a why respond "I'm not ready" or "I don't feel comfortable stating pronouns".

If they don't back off and ask why say "it's personal" followed by "it's personal and I would rather not discuss it in the workplace "

If that doesn't get rid then they need to be reported to HR for harassment!

''@BloodAndFire · Today 09:34
Who benefits from that?''

Everyone.

You have the choice not to use pronouns without having to justify yourself/explain why. Others can choose to use them in their email signature if they wish.

I really don't see why anyone would have an issue with that.

In the end with most workplaces you need to live your personal politics and beliefs at the door.

If pressed, use this as an example of how it would lead to discrimination:

www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/man-swaps-email-signatures-with-female-colleague-and-is-disheartened-by-way-he-is-treated/R7G4UZBFAKNHBJECY32OAA5ACA/

In the end with most workplaces you need to live [sic] your personal politics and beliefs at the door.

Er, do you not see the ridiculousness of saying that while also being proud of the fact that you've asked colleagues to put their pronouns in their email signature?

Do you also ask them to list their sexuality, weight, marital status, religion, ethnicity, and dietary requirements? Why not?

I would just ignore and not say anything.

For me at work I've been removing by gender for years by signing letters Dr rather than Mrs and omitting my first name. Interesting you get a different response when during this. Sexism is real there's no way I'd be putting my pronouns on an email - and aren't pronouns only needed when talking about someone not to them? 🤔

We were sent a new email signature to use that included pronouns. Most people deleted it and just used the rest. Glad to say my boss did as well!

We had an email about 2 years ago advising we could add pronouns to our signature should we wish to.

I'm yet to see any pronouns in my colleagues signatures!

BloodAndFire · Today 11:06
''Er, do you not see the ridiculousness of saying that while also being proud of the fact that you've asked colleagues to put their pronouns in their email signature?

Do you also ask them to list their sexuality, weight, marital status, religion, ethnicity, and dietary requirements? Why not?''

You are showing a recurring and rather odd lack of basic comprehension.

No one was asked to put their pronouns in their email signature. That is the definition of something being optional: you can choose to add them or you can choose not to.

This is not something that came from me either. This is the organisation policy on the matter: to leave it to staff to make their own decision as to whether they wish to include pronouns or not.

I frankly can't see why anyone with basic common sense would have an issue with that.

As an over-60 I'd be tempted to laugh and ask "What! at my age?" as it is such a young and earnest -looking thing to do

But if pressed, I'd say "why would I want to remind people to discriminate against me?"

Did your organisation also include optional fields in their email template for age, sexuality, weight, marital status, religion, ethnicity, and dietary requirements? Why not?'

If I was asked I would just say no.

If pressed, I would say that I don't believe in gender identity; I am an atheist and don't follow any religion or belief system which is based on faith or feelings rather than facts.

I am happy for other people to hold any belief system as long as they aren't harming others or expecting others to comply with the rules of their faith.

Good analogy: I respect the right of Muslim women to cover their hair if they wish to as an outward sign of their faith. However, if a Muslim told me that I had to cover my hair because I am a woman, I would refuse.

I would also refuse to use non-sex based pronouns to refer to other people if asked.
I would say that as an autistic woman, I am bad at lying and that lying makes me feel very uncomfortable.
If someone was pushing me to lie then they would not be respecting my disability.
I would use the pronoun brigade's language against them and say that if they didn't respect my disability, then I would feel that my organisation was an unsafe space.