New member of team at work and pronouns

[Ihopeyoudance]

I've recently recruited a new bloke to join my team, and in correspondence agreeing a start date, I can see he has pronouns in his email signature (as does his female current line manager).

He's joining a team of mostly women and we don't do that. I find it quite offensive in all honesty for a middle aged white man to be drawing attention to his privilege. I also think it's inappropriate in the workplace to make that kind of statement. I'd much rather judge him on his work performance but he's bringing in his political stance about gender identity and I do judge.
Anyway, from my conversations with him, I get the impression that he has them as those around him do and he thinks it makes him liberal and inclusive. I could be wrong though.
I really want to suggest he reconsiders this and highlight the negative perception it may evoke. He may be mortified and not have considered the alternative.
I'm the manager and don't really care about people's beliefs that don't impact work. I'm starting to put my head above the parapet though at work and don't want this kind of nonsense in my team as I find it really exclusionary. Does anyone have any suggestions for how to broach this?

The differnce with permitting leave for a religious observance and the use of pronouns is not in the same order of things, I suggest.

Pronouns are meant to signal how you want people to refer to you - or else what is the point of them? So, if an obvious male is using she/her pronouns or even 'they' pronouns', this then becomes a poltical act and a demand that people comply for fear of falling foul of social codes, or even the law.

Absolutely!

"Dear Sam/Alex, Here's the data I promised you ... " - no pronouns required FFS!

I think that you shouldn't jump to conclusions. The fact that both the new recruit and his current boss have pronouns in their signature block suggests that they work for an organisation where this is either mandatory or strongly encouraged. It doesn't automatically mean that the recruit agrees with it.

If the recruit adds pronouns to his signature block once he joins you you can address it by gently pointing out that nobody else does it and it could cause discord in the working environment which would be a bad thing.

I'm beginning to feel that I'm incredibly lucky in my employer. The company is Japanese owned and strongly disapproves of politics in the workplace as it is 'disharmonious'. All non-work conversations should be conducted in a 'light-hearted manner'. Our signature blocks are system generated and cannot be edited by the user. They don't contain pronouns.

Does anyone have any suggestions for how to broach this?

Yes - don't!

As long as he's not pressurising anyone, that's the most important thing.

It's incredibly common now to have pronouns listed on LinkedIn. I'd say about 70% of my sector does, including lots of men in their 50s & 60s this and I suspect some are doing it without giving it much thought. They want to be down with the kids.

Most people from my place of work have their pronouns in their signatures, and most of them have either been average to pleasant to deal with on a day to day basis. We never speak about the pronouns issue, and so far, not one of them have asked me why I don't display pronouns. It may never become an issue.

I’m on regular Zoom calls with hundreds of people UK-wide and you may get a couple of pronoun wankers but the vast majority don’t bother. It’s heartening to see it stay at that level for a while now.

So give him the rope and make sure everyone else knows it’s totally personal choice (and don’t do it yourself). He’ll soon be out on a limb because I truly believe that given the free choice, most folks are on the side of the silent majority of sane people who know it’s just virtue signalling bollocks.

Maybe he’s trans. He’s not hurting you by doing it so leave your prejudice at the door

Sigh.

The ideology that "men" and "women" are just different types of mentalities, and therefore that the half of humanity that is born female and lives with the physical and social consequences of that (both good and bad) needs neither specific rights and protections, nor a political voice, nor even their own name, absolutely does hurt women (original female meaning), because outside the genderist fantasy where sex doesn't matter, we do need these things and because of this ideology people are agitating and lobbying to remove them from us.

Declared pronouns exist in support of that ideology, so in supporting it, they also hurt women (original female meaning). They hurt us collectively for the reasons above, and they hurt us individually and personally by making us feel unsafe, devalued and disempowered in our workplaces.

That said, I agree with the advice not to mention the sig until or unless it becomes a symptom of or trigger for a wider problem.

My organisation has been pushing them for a while. Some do, some don't. The lack of uptake of something sold as "simple and harmless" speaks volumes.

Let the new guy adjust to the norms of the company and see what happens.

Can confirm 'pronoun wankers' is the general (silent) response as soon as anyone shares them.

Yep - accompanied by an inward eye roll.

Why do you think that? My partner passes easily as a man. I know trans women who pass. I also dated a cis male who most people thought was trans. It's not always cut and dry.

But if they pass as a trans person then you'd be already referring to jack as he/him as you'd think him male.

Public sector here. My chief executive has just started using pronouns in her email. She is a white female in a very privileged position. It’s amazing how many women in my organisation are now doing the same! Just why so we follow without thinking about it.

The Stonewall index is a big part of this. Employers move up the ranks for stuff like pronouns.

I agree with the earlier comments. You’re projecting a little too far here.

Do nothing and only if he starts spouting woke nonsense then rein him in. As others have said, he may just be using a standard email format of his previous company.

I don' t think it's worth getting off on a bad start about. Let him do him on his email sig, and you do you.

We recently had some of this on email sigs but it's not compulsory. I do feel it's a bit of unecessary myself but I wouldn't let it cause a problem. Unless he behaves unreasonably I'd just leave it.

In 99% of cases it is - esp when you’re seeing that person on a regular basis.

Cis isn’t required - male is sufficient.

Cis isn’t required - male is sufficient.

Absolutely! If using the "wrong" pronouns is "literal violence" then so is using offensive and unnecessary adjectives/prefixes.

Maybe you should clarify what your employer wants before he starts?

Pointing our that many people see stating pronouns as a statement of belief in a very controversial and divisive ideology? It may affect relationships with other employees and customers in exactly the same way as stating ‘scientologist’ or ‘Tory voter’.

And it will make him look like a wanker.

The team is made up of women and this makes many women very uncomfortable and it can actually create unease around that person as it puts peoples backs up. Not a good atmosphere and completely unnecessary, there is no need for statements of religious or political affiliations in the workplace.

ZOMBIE

Perhaps a slight derail, but I think you've made an assumption by describing him as privileged. White men are certainly more likely to be privileged but not all white men are privileged. I think it's unhelpful to partake in this race to the bottom where we are all made to feel guilty for not being a disabled black lesbian.

Can confirm - zombie 🧟‍♀️