New One With Pronouns

[Rudderneck]

I recently came across a new one with pronouns at work. Corresponding about a facility rental with a member of the local LGBTQ+ group, this person who is clearly female listen (no pronouns) in her email signature.

I am not sure what the expectation is for this, she also simply uses an initial for her name, which I've seen a few times recently among non-binary or transmen in my local area. My best guess is we are just meant to use the initial all the time.

X seems pleasant enough but man, my mind boggles at the need for special validation among so many of these young people. It seems designed to create a lack of inner resilience.

No pronouns - does she not use I or me?

How utterly tiresome this person sounds.

I dunno. I can imagine, if forced by organisation to put pronouns in signature, that I'd put just this. "No pronouns" means you're not compelling others' speech, surely?

Also I know a couple of people known by their initial who are perfectly rational. So perhaps there's hope!

I would take no pronouns to mean no preferred pronouns. I.E use whichever pronouns you want/assume me to be by my clearly female name/voice/appearance.

Maybe she was “encouraged” to put her pronouns in her email signature and this was her way of making her point in a way they couldn’t complain about it.

This was my thought.

I’m not sure I follow, her signature explicitly says “No pronouns”? Tbh that would probably be my response if forced to give my preferred pronouns - no pronouns, just call me TeleTropes.

I also often sign emails off as ‘T’. Nobody calls me T in real like (except my mum sometimes), I’m always TeleTropes but don’t always feel the need to type it out. But depending on the letter it might be their nickname anyway (I’m thinking K, L, G, B, D, V, J, M, P are all legitimate names but usually spelt with two/three/four letters which isn’t strictly necessary).

She sounds gender-critical?

If I were a member of an LGBT+ Group, I'd probably put "no pronouns" meaning "no preferred pronouns", maybe that's what they mean?

You can't avoid using pronouns at all times, you just can't.
As PP above pointed out "I" or "my" are pronouns. Also you might need to say "you" or "your" during conversation with this person.

On the other hand, if this person is actually totally batshit and they expect you to get through communicating with them and regarding them using NO pronouns WHATSOEVER I'd call it a day in engaging with them and leave gracefully.

I assume it just means she doesn't expect people to have their language dictated by her. Most normal people don't need to explain that but perhaps in her role she gets asked a lot.

I suppose there's also the possibility it could be they mean "no gendered pronouns" (so they/them etc)
Crikey.

Oh dear, seems like you're going to need to ask them or risk being attacked and threatened by the wokenazis!

I would go for "normal pronouns" myself. I'm sure that's fine. 🙂

If she’s indicating that she finds the whole pronoun thing a complete nonsense by saying ‘call me whatever you like, it’s obvious I’m female’ then great.

If she’s indicating you have to call her X all the time I’d ignore her drama and correctly sex her with she/her.

I am about 90
8% sure she is not objecting to the regular inclusion of pronoun demands, weird pronouns, and is not GC. The group she belongs to is very much in support of gender ideology in all it's manifestations.

I did wonder if she meant no preferred pronouns, that is a possibility. But along with the avoiding use of any name the possibility that it means, don't use pronouns at all, seemed real.

Who knows I guess - I don't think I will ask.

I would guess that HR or IT have asked that person for their pronouns to update their records/email signature (if they're all centrally managed or something) and they said "no thanks" and this was recorded as "no pronouns".

But it could be that they actually want people to call them by their initial every time too, which I guess works provided there are fewer than 27 people and each chooses a different initial?

With more than 26 people, you start to get into having to thread combinations of letters together, and that could look a lot like...names.

I‘ve also seen the „no pronouns“ recently, in someone‘s Instagram bio.
Like in your case it was someone who you’d expect to list their preferred pronouns. They were quoted on a very progressive/ ‚woke‘ account.

The strange thing was that in that quote the person‘s occupation was described in an ambiguous manner - it was a German Instagram account and in German professions have a male and a female form, so let’s say it’s ‚teacher‘ (male) and ‚teacheress‘ (female), (like Duke and Duchess, you see what I mean).

When talking about a group of teachers, nowadays in progressive language people would use teacher:esses, instead of just ‚teachers‘, to include female teachers.

So in that person‘s case (who by name and appearance seems to be a woman and states ‚no pronouns‘ in her bio) they used the inclusive form and described her as a ‚teacher:ess‘, even though that form is only used in reference to mixed sex groups and not to individuals.

It like if someone referred to Catherine as ‚Prince:ss of Wales‘. Very odd.

There are definitely genderists who say they don't have pronouns at all.

That would screw up with a way smaller group than 27, given that forename initials are not distributed evenly throughout the alphabet. With 27 in the group there's a very good chance that two of them share a birthday and there's 365 of those available...

What would they like to be referred as I wonder?

The worst is that little pause the do to try and enunciate this : nonsense.

Who cares. I’d just crack on and say ‘you’ and use their whole name each time. It’s them that would have to read the indecipherable emails. Insufferable twat is what I’d say in my head.

No, there is no HR or IT, this is a small volunteer led organization, they don't have anything like that, and the email was the person's personal email.

I feel many people need a lesson in grammar. 'Which,' 'that,' 'who' are also pronouns. Is X consistent in a "absolutely no pronouns" dictate?