Reasons not to have pronouns in work email for senior colleague please

[horseymum]

I was asked yesterday in a casual office chat if we should have pronouns in our email signatures 'because lots of other organisations do'. I said no, it's proven to be detrimental to women which he was quite happy with but I'd like a bit more to add to this. I'm fairly new into the organisation so gently making views known. I will also probably have to explain not wearing of rainbow laces due to Stonewall affiliation and the fact I think women should be able to compete fairly in sport and that whole movement is so trans focused.

You can't compel people to do it ... is that what they meant?

Depends on your organisation I guess, but it is potentially damaging to be affiliated to Stonewall. Lots of organisations have backed away from them, so perhaps a quick look at the PR risk for your business might be worthwhile? An analysis focused on how links with Stonewall might hinder your business objectives is always going to be more compelling than a discussion about wearing rainbow laces/lanyards

Good luck!

I think you've given him reason enough. Good idea to get more thoughts, but might be better not to raise the issue again unless someone else does?

You can ask lots of questions like why? what will it add? are we doing it because its cool or some other good reason?

Also it is a political statement confirming alignment with an ideology (that biological sex is not important) which is damaging to women.

It's a sport organisation so gets government funding so the business issue is less compelling as we don't make money. I don't think he was going to compel us, he just hadn't really thought about it. I'm not doing it even if compelled but lots of staff would just go along with it.

tell him it's forced "outing" eg for closet trans, or people who don't believe in this crap

I think it should be individual choice whether or not to use them. If people want to that's absolutely their choice.
Where this came up at my word I said I wasn't comfortable putting my pronouns on a doc. So I'd say to him he needs to give people flexibility to choose if they want to or not, and make it clear there is no penalty for not.

OP, but surely your organisation still has objectives? If I remember correctly, some government departments, and even a small number of universities have decided that Stonewall is toxic and they’ve stepped away. Surely in a sports organisation, this is even more pronounced - with the potential to kill women’s participation in sport at all levels stone dead?

Agree with pp about the questions - my experience is that that’s always a useful approach

I don’t understand the forced outing argument. If someone is a closeted trans person they would just use sex-based pronouns wouldn’t they?

There are two reasons not to make pronouns in email signatures a company policy: first of all, not all trans people feel ready to announce their pronouns to the world and it puts them on the spot. Second, it's not good to keep on calling attention to people's sex or gender all the time. Calling attention to people's sex or gender when it isn't relevant can lead to prejudice and "stereotype threat" especially against women, and in future it could even be seen as discriminatory if a company pushes it as a policy.

As for rainbow laces, surely that should also be an individual choice? Rainbows are a political statement and nobody has to make a political statement at work. Not everyone agrees with everything that rainbow laces imply. I would not go into detail, or if you do I would ay something along the lines of "well, some people think rainbow laces just mean general support for LGBT people, but other people have gone into it in more detail and think some of the organisations like Stonewall which use rainbow symbols have taken a wrong turn recently."

Individuals can make up their own minds what they put in their signatures, or whether they wear a rainbow, it should be acceptable to do it or not at work, and nothing should be read into what people decide to do or not do. No-one should put pressure on anyone else at work to do the same as they do. People are entitled to privacy about their gender identity and about their political beliefs. I would focus on "workplace" rather than "trans politics".

You can also say that its difficult for people who are struggling with gender identity to have to publicly commit in this way.

Lots of good articles on this.

• people shouldn't be compelled to label themselves and may not wish to
• it's proven to trigger less positive responses to someone who is a declared woman
• there are a range of beliefs, not just one, and religious faiths are personal things that others shouldn't be required to participate in

Sadly the crux of it for this manager will probably be a) a realisation that no, this isn't just the latest empty fashionable virtue signal nicey nicey thing he's taken it for (and it has been sold to him as), it's got a shedload of problems lurking some of which could involve HR and legal.

And b) the group he is wishing to demonstrate being lovely about should not be placed under pressure to announce their pronouns whether ready or not/certain or not, and some have written articles about finding it offensive that lots of non TQ people are leaping on the bandwagon of sharing pronouns rather than focusing on those who do actually want their different choice of pronouns understood.

If he is not interested in the feelings and needs of anyone else, that one might swing it.

He is actually quite thoughtful so I will store these discussion points for when it comes up again. We definitely have targets to improve female participation in sport so that will be important.

There was a case where a male manager was getting complaints about a female colleague's work. She refuted them and claimed the complaints were unjustified and misogynistic. So he sent emails from her address to the clients, and the complaints continued, whereas there were no complaints regarding the emails she sent from his address.

Frustratingly, I cannot remember enough details to find the articles.

Ask him if any of the other protected characteristics should go on an email signature, and if not why not.

@JellySaurus

www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/gender-inequality-man-woman-switch-names-week-martin-schneider-nicky-knacks-pay-gap-a7622201.html

It’s interesting that the FA has just decided that the Wembley arch will now only be lit up for football related reasons after the palaver with the Ukraine colours ( yes) Israel colours ( no) debacle.
all sensible otherwise non- political companies should take their lead from this and implement a similar policy.
that avoids all these controversial and complicated issues and can just be a blanket no to promoting any ideology of any stripe!

One of those things women had observed but which became credible and newsworthy when a man accidentally was on the receiving end!

Thank you! I've saved that link now.

Tell him that the belief of gender identity ideology is akin to a political or religious belief. Not everyone holds the same views and it compels people to align with something they don't believe in.

And even from the horse's mouth of Stonewall, gender ideology competes with women's rights so it's not a harmless , throwaway thing.

I'd consider the risks involved for a business.

Certainly it give me pause - if I see someone with pronouns in a sig I back away and in some cases have ceased interaction with that organisation/company because of it. I see it exactly akin to someone signing their email with various political slogans or declarations of their acceptance of this or that religion. It's personal, irrelevant, and unprofessional.

That's not the morality of it, just a blunt business, bottom line aspect, but it's one I'd expect most businesses would consider.

and that'll learn me to RTFT. Sorry! as you were.

I don’t understand the forced outing argument. If someone is a closeted trans person they would just use sex-based pronouns wouldn’t they?

Accepting sex-based pronouns because society automatically uses them for you is one thing. Actively informing society you are something that you don't believe yourself to be, and requesting that society treats you in a way you view as harmful because you don't yet feel comfortable coming out, is another.

Presumably, 'they're going to call me him/her because they don't know the real me yet and don't know better' is something people can reconcile a bit more in their head, and isn't as detrimental to a person's mental health as actively, rather than passively, participating in their own oppression by announcing what that see as a harmful untruth about themselves to the world.

The choice ends up as 'make an active choice to participate in my oppression' (bad) or 'come out earlier than I'd like to' (also bad) so they can't win.

That's just my take on it though - I often think that is more likely to make people that believe in mandatory pronouns think twice about the request, because they sure as hell don't care that women suffer detriment when they signpost that they are, in fact, women.

It is in effect requiring all employees to join hands and recite the Lords Prayer.

And leaving anyone of other beliefs in the position of having to state this risking rejection and abuse for being of the Wrong Faith/Heretic/Going to Hell, or to silently go along with something against their beliefs. Some will not care about mouthing it. Other people will be very, very uncomfortable and angry. And it does not half establish a hierachy where prejudice is normal

Diversity includes all and everyone. An organisation cannot be diverse if they dictate whether pronouns should or should not be used.

I expect the directive to come soon. When it does, my pronouns shall be "I and me". Those are my personal pronouns.

If anyone queries it, I shall simply say the clues are in my title (Mrs) and my first name: let's say Henrietta.

There is something very empowering about being 63 and no longer giving too many flying fucks for the politics.