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.

This is how I feel, genuinely. I don't HAVE pronouns, I USE pronouns. The suggestion about 'sharing' pronouns is saying 'what pronouns should other people use to refer to you?'. My answer to that is 'I don't care'. I really don't. I'm very clearly a woman but if someone called me 'he', well, ok. Knock yourself out, mate. I'm not the one that would look odd.

Thank you. This is an important point. No, they cannot force me to share my pronouns but they can tarnish my reputation in a way that it makes it difficult for me to secure my next role as people talk.

I'm watching someone else navigate this, not related to pronouns, but where he is discussed at senior levels and is losing out on roles due to informal chats happening between new and previous employers.

He can't prove it but I've had enough people phone me over the years to informally ask about so and so who's applied for a job and is there anything I can share.

In that case you need to be more clever about this.

You could raise concerns about the fact that there are at least two groups of people who don't feel comfortable sharing their pronouns. One group is people who think they may be trans but aren't ready to go public, and the other group is people with gender critical beliefs. Trans people who aren't "out" yet deserve to be protected and to have the space to share their new pronouns in their own time without being pressured into it, and people with gender critical beliefs are very litigious and tend to bring employment tribunal claims if they believe they have been discriminated against, with a very high success rate in court.

Given what a politically controversial topic gender identity is at the moment, particularly in the wake of the Supreme Court judgment, you think it is unwise for the business to be seen to be politically partisan. And as a leader, you are wary of creating a culture where people who don't feel comfortable sharing their pronouns are ostracised or otherwise put at a disadvantage. In your opinion, it is better for the business to make it clear that that people are welcome to share their pronouns if they wish, and equally welcome not to share them if they do not wish to, that you have single sex spaces such as toilets and changing rooms based on biological sex and also additional provision for trans people to ensure their safety and dignity, that your business is inclusive of everyone and will not tolerate any form of discrimination against anyone.

At a time where many businesses are exposing themselves to legal risk by making empty statements and gestures which demonstrate their ignorance of the law and do nothing to really help anyone, you feel the business should lead by example and create a truly inclusive culture by doing things which actually make a difference. Putting pressure on everyone to share their pronouns is not that, and will only sow division and resentment and potentially expose the business to legal risk.

Based on Miss Scarlett’s point, diversity is really important. We need to offer a range of approaches and opportunities so that everyone’s differing needs can be accommodated.

Those who need to share their pronouns appreciate when some others do as well. Those who can’t share theirs for various reasons, are made comfortable by others who don’t. What was that scenario where the inclusion panel changed something in their organisation which made life really hard for another category of employees? Something to do with doors and visual impairment.

Diversity requires a variety of approaches, not uniformity which is in itself exclusionary.

@MissScarletInTheBallroom that's a really wise post.

I fundamentally disagree with this.

That's interesting. Why is it that you disagree?

I'd just say 'I don't do pronouns' and leave it at that. If they asked why, I'd feign ignorance about them and say I didn't see the point of them and put it on them to explain them. and then I'd say I didn't believe in compelled speech. But that'd probably get me in trouble in a work setting but I wouldn't care. This whole thing is bullshit.
I'm a SAHM so haven't had to deal with this but my husband got around it but just ignoring it and he was in a very captured area ( not anymore, he's free!:-)

Can you expand?

Can you explain why?

I disagree with it to because it fundamentally ignores the nature of pronouns which are not some kind of pick’n’mix. They are words with clear definitions and are not for the choosing.

Along with that, adding them to your email or whatever steps over a line. If an organisation asked its staff to state their religion or political stance or marital status or sexuality they would be in very hot water. Adding pronouns is a personal, ideological and/or political statement which has no business in the workplace

Speaking as a linguist, I have to say the "my pronouns" thing does make my teeth itch. That's not how language works. Introducing fundamental ambiguity into a language by conflating singular and plural anaphoric references is not a good thing, folks 😏

@Ddakji I take a different view on both liberal and pragmatic grounds:

Liberal: people are free to conceive of themselves however they like, and up to a point should be free to ask others to refer to them however they like (someone was the first person to call herself Ms, for example). Where that ‘point’ is is a social matter and society right here and now deems it fine to request pronouns. It’s not for me to ban that. What’s not OK is hard or soft compulsion.

Pragmatic: she won’t win over the HR department with your line. She’s more likely to harden their opposition to non-sharing.

Would you think it fine in the workplace for someone to ask to be referred to as a cat or a vacuum cleaner or a Martian? No. Because those words have meaning and you know that your colleague is a human not a cat or vacuum cleaner or Martian.

Just because a word is small doesn’t make it less of a word.

Nothing to do with being “liberal”.

I'm not a linguist, but a speaker of multiple languages. I once tried to explain it to DH (mostly monoglot) something like this:

Your name is yours because it's what you would be called in any language. Pronouns are not yours because they're a function of the language being used, and if they could be said "belong" to anyone, they'd "belong" to the person speaking the language.

So if you said "My name is Balonz, my pronouns are he/him" then a non-English speaker would be perfectly able to say"你好 Balonz, 早上好!" but they wouldn't say "这是Balonz，he 吃面包"

Do I think it would be OK for someone to ask that? Yes, albeit weird.

Do I think there should be any expectation that others comply? No.

Do you think it’s OK for someone to ask to be called Reverend? It also implies a world view.

Do you think it was OK when the first person asked to be called Ms? Because that was also weird (and ideological) at the time.

How did you get on at yesterday’s meeting OP?

Basically call yourself Reverend, OK (though it does rather break the social contract rooted in Gricean conversational maxims if you are not, in fact, a reverend). Call other people heathens and infidels if they prefer not to, not so much.

Does being called Reverend or Ms change the mean of words or require others to deny reality? No, of course not. So really not comparable.

I'm also unsure as to how women's not wanting to announce our marital/sexual status is 'ideological'. To me, it seems merely logical. No man is ever expected to introduce himself in such a way.

Someone can ask to be called Reverend. And if that is their job title/qualification title, it is based in material reality.

It is also not a requirement for anyone to call someone Reverend.

'Ms' is a political but legitimate neutral title for a female person. Also not a requirement for anyone to use. But again, it is based in material reality as it is a title used for a female person.

These are not comparable to expecting someone to use wrong sex pronouns that defy English language conventions.

Reverend implies a world view I believe to be false. I don’t think it should be banned on those grounds. I’d call the Dalaï Lama the Dalaï Lama (or sir, if speaking to him), not His Holiness. I don’t think he should be banned from using His Holiness either, not from requesting others do so, provided it’s acceptable and normal to decline to do so.

Concepts and meanings are also partly social, and by necessity evolve. A lot of words are load-bearing (especially in this space around laws and rights) and that’s why it’s very important to explain and defend important terminology. But not by literally banning others from using the words differently, especially about themselves. That’s ’no debate’ thinking and I reject it.

@Helleofabore Fully agree with you on no compulsion to use. That’s the important thing here, not adjudicating whether someone else’s use of words is sufficiently aligned to material reality to permit them to use them or to invite others to use.

The fact is we live in a society where people hold a wide range of political and metaphysical beliefs, many of which I believe to be false or even dangerous. I think the best system is not to adjudicate which are based on reality and to permit only those to be expressed. I think the best way (in fact the only workable way) is to say: you’re free to use words as you like, but you aren’t free to expect me to comply.

That’s why I said personal, ideological or political.

There are limits to that though. Some words / labels have real-world impacts that should be boundaried. I am thinking here of performative utterances: "I declare you man and wife" only has real-world impacts if you are invested with the requisite authority for instance. If you go round claiming to be a surgeon when you are not you are liable to get in trouble. It's an interesting question - I wonder if any philosophers of language are tackling it.