Request to share pronouns

[Paulettamcgee]

I feel this question has been asked and answered to death but.....

I've always ignored any request to share my pronouns. I'll introduce my name and role and happily hand over to the next person. I'm fine if someone else wishes to share their pronouns but I do not wish to do so.

I'm very senior at work in an organisation which has a lot of colleagues under the age of 30 ( I think that's relevant as I notice it is younger people who are more keen that pronouns are shared). Generally every introduction in my workplace included sharing pronouns along with your name and role.

I've received some feedback that I should be sharing my pronouns when introducing myself. Especially as a senior leader as it is meaningful for many colleagues and sets the tone for meetings. I don't need to respond to this feedback individually but there is a meeting on Wednesday where it will be expected I share my pronouns when introducing myself. I can foresee not sharing may become problematic.

I don't want to share my pronouns or feel that I have to. I've considered doing it to fit in and make colleagues feel more at ease but I really don't want to. But I also don't want to create an environment where others feel that they can't share theirs.

How do I navigate this?? All help gratefully received.

@Helleofabore

Who is talking about ‘banning’ people using cross sex pronouns though? Have I?

We’ve been discussing for a few hours whether people should be permitted to use cross-sex pronouns and to invite others to do so. By banned I simply meant not permitted, I’m not trying to open up a new front in the discussion (I need to go actually).

@Seethlaw

It's literally asking people to lie about what they know, for the trans person's comfort.

I agree that for many people it is that, yes, which is one reason why it must never be compelled or pressured.

All I’m saying though is that many people don’t see it like that (sincerely, I think), and they get to shape the language too. So no banning of how others use pronouns to describe either themselves or others, in my view.

(sorry have to go — hopefully for real this time!)

@GenderRealistBloke

"All I’m saying though is that many people don’t see it like that (sincerely, I think), and they get to shape the language too. So no banning of how others use pronouns to describe either themselves or others, in my view."

Who's banning anything?

That said, the logical side of my brain says that we should ban using cross-sex pronouns for trans people, simply because the result is an incoherent system where the same word is used to designate someone who is "an adult female human", and someone who is "an adult male human who lives as a woman, whatever that means to them personally."

The obvious solution would be the invention of new pronouns for trans people, which would cover the entirety of their life, and immediately inform everyone as to their trans status, thus making life easier for everyone including the trans person themselves. "This is Seethlaw; she-to-he will work with you on this project" would be a far more honest and inclusive statement than using "he". It wouldn't require that I either expressly come out as trans, which can be damn awkward, or that I hide the whole part of my life I lived as a woman, including for example my pregnancy and my being the parent who gave birth to my son, which are important things to me.

So yeah, I think I'd like it to go the Ms way, and that new pronouns were invented for trans people. But at the same time, there are so few of us that the logistics required to effect such a change would be utterly unreasonable. So we're left with an incoherent system - but it must never be forgotten where that incoherence comes from: it's trans people who introduce the twist, not people wishing to use pronouns the way they have always been used.

Lots of things aren’t permitted in the workplace, including sharing personal, political or ideological positions in email signatures.

This all feels very similar to those who claim that books are being banned from school libraries, when what’s happening is age-appropriate curation.

Words matter, don’t they? It’s almost like people misunderstand when you use the wrong word or are inaccurate or unclear.

“Who's banning anything?”

I have just looked back half way and cannot see any discussion about ‘banning’ pronouns. I have seen plenty of arguments about why they shouldn’t be used, why they shouldn’t be forced or expected in any way, and why people will choose to just continue to use established language conventions, but I hadn’t read that anyone said they should not be permitted or banned.

I think there could have been a discussion about using new pronouns at one time. I am not sure now if it would work. Your suggestion of she to he could have had merit where xir / xe seems to not be accepted.

no-one can ban use of words by another, everyone is free to use whatever they want - but in doing so they need to choose whether they wish to be understood by others.

If a man sits in a room and introduces themselves as she / her - then that is going to confuse the situation - you are a man, not a woman - that doesn't make sense - and I will assume that person's thinking to be mixed-up and confused, or to have a nefarious / deceitful purpose in pretending to be what they are not.

If that same man insists that I have to refer to them as she / her then that is coercive behaviour which is not acceptable, they are controlling my behaviour.

To tell me that I must 'use pronouns' can only come from a place where pronouns must be used because they are being used contrary to their definitions and must be stated as otherwise they are not obvious - that is a) deceitful and b) coercive.

I am very clearly a man - there can be no confusion, so I do not need to use pronouns - I was born a boy, became a man, have a male name, look like a man - it really isn't tricky!

So - no, it is not possible to ban anyone from using whatever they like - but:

• don't expect to be taken seriously as you will come across as either confused or deceitful
• don't insist on what I must do as that is coercive bullying

I've always gone with "I will always respect the preferred pronouns of others, but I am not comfortable with being asked to publicly disclose my gender identity and I don't mind what pronouns people use to refer to me".

I'm not particularly one side or the other on the gender debate - my general stance is each to their own and I will use whatever preferred pronouns other people have if they share that information with me. But I don't want to be forced to share pronouns myself. It shouldn't be mandatory, just as it isn't mandatory to disclose in professional settings that you have a disability, or your ethnicity or religion.

Requiring newly invented pronouns has huge issues:

• It is coercive behaviour - controlling how others act (if someone is a man and is obviously a man, then their pronouns are clearly male, so requiring anything else is controlling)
• It is deceitful - it pretends that one thing is something else
• It denies the binary immutability of birth sex by implying that people can change sex - they can't.

2 sexes:

• male: he/him
• female: she / her

There is nothing else.

#returnToTruth

We are through the looking glass here.

I made a post emphasising the importance of the right to share pronouns and the right not to. (The latter being my emphasis, given the OP’s situation).

You then replied saying you “fundamentally disagreed” , because words have a “clear definition” and are “not for choosing” and that sharing pronouns in the workplace stepped “over a line” and was not “fine” (by analogy with claiming to be a cat).

The very clear thrust is that you think staff should not be permitted to do this. If you think that’s materially different from a “ban” then fine, but I think you are splitting hairs.

Personally I would just ignore the suggestion. It's too tempting to be sarcastic about it and lead to trouble.

If pulled up in a meeting then ask "what do you mean by pronouns, could you give me an example?" and get them to waste precious minutes by discussing it.

I don't disagree with you necessarily. However, I think it is something that would have been worth discussing in the past. As I said, now that people are well aware of the issues with new pronouns I doubt there is much appetite for that discussion now.

They should never have been something that would be coerced. But I also don't see anyone except a rare one or two who are even trying to use Neo pronouns now. So, I doubt they would have really become mainstream even if there was interest.

I can understand where you are coming from - however, I don't think that it was a discussion for the past - it is very much a discussion for now.

• in the past people were scared of the repercussions of challenging pronouns
• the SC judgement has given a huge amount of confidence to being able to say that a man is a man for all that (to misquote RB)
• It is a part of the discussion which takes our country back to a place of truth - if media still uses the wrong pronouns then they are still creating a fake illusion that you can change sex, again with the ECHR code of practice - how can we on the one side say that a man is a man and then call him she?

We need to go back to a place of truth and honesty because that is the only foundation for properly supporting children / young adults / adults when they have mental health issues in this area, it frees society up to look after people better, it makes all discussions more honest and open...

So, I do think it is vitally important right now...

A point I would make, privately rather than publicly if you prefer to be non-confrontational, is that sharing pronouns disadvantages women.

There is abundant evidence that women still face sex discrimination in the workplace and work-related activities (e.g. publication/dissemination of reports) and thus anything which makes sex more salient in a work environment - such as sharing pronouns in meetings or email signatures - disadvantages women. Sex (and gender) should almost always be irrelevant in work contexts and placing additional emphasis on sex is runs counter to a commitment to equality.

Just as forgetting or misremembering a new or temporary colleague’s name is a non-issue, easily dealt with, so should be inadvertently using the wrong pronouns for someone.

If I were talking to you or asking you something I would refer to you either by your name or as you.

I work with a nonbinary person (new starter), let's call her Jo. She gets "misgendered" all the time in my hearing because it's common in my job to have three way conversations where we discuss the work that needs to be done for the day.

"Lawn, could you train Jo today?" (Jo is present)
"OK, what sort of stuff?"
"Just show her the ropes, do what you normally do. She'll need some PPE so you'll have to go via the storeroom."

Or "would you two girls take this and go to location X please?" (I know, not a pronoun, but still a gendered word) In a similar vein, "Sorry lass, I don't know the answer to that."

When you have a manager trying to direct several people at the same time, it's extremely common to hear yourself referred to in the third person. Maybe this is a white collar job vs blue collar job thing?

Luckily Jo is a very reserved person and doesn't keep trying to correct my manager!

There is no such thing as a non binary person - there are two sexes and everybody is one of those two… so Jo will be either female or male.

You use ‘she’ at the beginning, so presumably female?

In which case those pronouns are accurate.

You literally "misgendered" Jo in your first paragraph.

Almost as if you know as well as the rest of us that Jo is female, that there is no such thing as a non binary person, and that people who identify as non binary come in exactly two varieties - male and female - meaning that they are exactly as binary as every other fucker.

(a) There is no difference between a binary person and a non-binary person apart from the label itself
(b) In any situation where I'm told someone is non-binary, the next thing I need to know is are they a non-binary man or a non-binary woman
(c) There is no professional situation in which it useful or relevant to know whether someone thinks they are non-binary or not.

So if I made the rules, the response to "I'm non-binary" at work would be a polite smile and a nod. No questions about pronouns.

Oh, and if someone really wants their colleagues to use unusual pronouns then it's on them to to tell people and either remind them or do without. The burden is not on their colleagues, neither to strain to remember nor to feel embarrassed if they forget. As Jo seems to accept.

(If I made the rules...)

No such thing as misgendering. The words in question refer to sex, not gender. Using female words for a female person isn’t mis-anything. So “Jo” doesn’t get to moan, whine or anything else.

LOL so Jo is a woman, very obviously.

(b) In any situation where I'm told someone is non-binary, the next thing I need to know is are they a non-binary man or a non-binary woman

Have you ever been asked if you are a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist ?

Just understand that using compelled pronouns absolutely is a non-neutral act.

Part of getting a Gender recognition certificate is proving to the board that you have compelled other to use the wrong pronouns, and they have complied.

If you use wrong pronouns, you are actively participating in the destruction of single-sex spaces (or you were, until the SC ruling - and even now it's going to be a long haul to walk back the people who have 'got ahead of the law' and illegally allowed single sex spaces to be mixed sex)

You understand that non-binary doesn’t negate someone being a man or a woman, yes?