How to deal with request to wear pronoun badge

[IknowIknowIknow]

It's finally happened - a request to declare my pronouns that is going to be hard to ignore. Advice welcome.

Situation is that I volunteer for a charity that deals with members of the public. The charity has a new member of staff who is non-binary. There's an event for the public coming up that a couple of other volunteers and I are volunteering at. The paid member of staff who is a volunteer coordinator mentioned last time we saw her that there are pronoun badges, that no one has to wear them if they don't want to, but also that she feels that it's quite "othering" if only this new non-binary staff members wears a pronoun badge and no one else does.

Clearly I can just say "no thanks" with no further comment when I'm offered a pronoun badge. However, I would probably be the only person out of a small number of staff and volunteers not wearing one, so it's not a neutral act to not wear it. I am also actually a very inclusive person who is perfectly able to get along with a wide range of people even if I don't share their beliefs. I'm worried that by not wearing the badge, the staff (including the non-binary person) will make all kinds of assumptions about me that aren't correct, eg that I hate all trans people, that I'm "transphobic" etc etc. I think it will change the way the staff view me (for the worse and through misunderstanding).

WWYD? I've considered emailing the volunteer coordinator in advance explaining my reasons for not wanting to wear the badge but saying that this isn't relevant to how I am happy to volunteer alongside anyone else, staff or volunteer. DH said I should just "forget" to wear the badge and just ignore the existence of the badges on the day. Or I can just say "no thanks" when offered a badge. Or write "no preferred pronouns" on the badge. But that implies you think it's worth clarifying that you have no preferred pronouns, which is as ridiculous to me as writing on the badge that I'm an atheist, just so people with a religion feel ok about mentioning their religion.

Any advice?

To be fair to the volunteer coordinator, she did say "for people that feel comfortable wearing one" there will be pronoun badges at the event, she definitely didn't say that everyone will be forced to wear one. But then saying she didn't want the NB person to be othered does imply that by not wearing the badge you want to other them...

I don't really care if I have to wear a badge that says I'm female. I'd hope it would be obvious but it's not like I'm embarrassed about the fact. It's just for one event.

If it would cause weakened relations not to among the team then I'd go along with it.

If it seemed like half of them weren't then I probably wouldn't. Just because I don't really see it as necessary. I don't find it offensive though.

Honestly I think if you do anything other than saying 'no thanks, I'm fine', you might as well just wear one. Hiding it, losing it, making up lies .... all these enable the organizers to say in the future 'we've been doing this a while and nobody has had any issue with wearing a pronoun badge'.

Good idea. I think the charity should be aware that attempts to be inclusive using the blunt tool of asking people to share their pronouns is flawed and outdated.
That they risk causing offence and discomfort to trans identified people and gender questioning people as well as to those with the protected belief of GC.
That as a charity their primary aim should be to engage and serve their beneficiaries, not centre the way their volunteers would prefer to be spoken of in the third person.
Charities typically exist to support vulnerable and disadvantaged people and if they can't engage with those people there is no point in their existence.
Political statements and demands regarding language use are barriers to engagement of people who often have more pressing priorities than having to remember the correct pronoun for the person who is supposed to be meeting their needs, rather than the other way round.
This is a very useful discussion for a public facing charity to engage in. If this thread could serve as a springboard, then all good.

The VCs job is to focus the volunteers on carrying out their public facing tasks.

If the "they/them" needs a badge to interact with the public then the VC should be asking if that individual should be placed into a public facing role.
And not applying pressure to long standing volunteers to follow a belief system which has nothing to do with why the event is being held.

You are correct. Humans are basically pattern recognition creatures. If 95% of people are displaying pronouns which are what you would have used anyway your brain will filter out the extraneous information and pattern match. You will be more likely to miss a pronoun variation.

see I'd think that was rude.....in those circs I'd say "Jane told me" I am probably old fashioned but I was taught that you don't use pronouns when the person is stood there. The correction that my grandmother used was "Who is "she/he"? the cat's grandmother/grandfather?"

'No thanks' is more than sufficient.

It's interesting how things have changed. I'm part of a very big online group that meets regularly on Zoom.

Over the last year I"ve noticed how a number of those who were she/her a few months ago have followed the wider trend and dropped the pronouns.

wow she actually said "people that"??????? Surely if she is concerned about politeness and "othering" she should know that its correct to say "people who" and that "that" is only used for things not people?

I simply said no when I was asked. Nobody pushed any further. An offer is fine, a refusal is also fine, don’t overthink it. And btw the non binary person who sparked it here is called she by everyone badge or no badge because as the saying goes, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck … nobody checks for a badge to confirm if it’s a duck do they! Be polite, don’t deliberately misgender but it hard when someone is obviously a woman

I'd just wear it. It's silly but honestly most of us have to do daft / pointless things in the course of our jobs all the time.

It's not just silly or daft though - it's insidiously forcing people to align with an ideology that they may very well strongly oppose. I wouldn't wear a badge intended to tell everyone how I feel about the fact of my biological sex.

And what when you are in a group of three (you, Jane and Fred) need to say, to Fred, something like, "Jane already told me that she will give us the documents later."

Jane already told me that Jane will give us the documents later. (seriously?)

Jane already told me that we will get the documents later. (The grammar is fine, but who will give us the documents, and will they go to all three of us, or two of us? Plus, you're already changing your natural response in order to avoid the bloody pronouns.)

Plus, if Jane isn't there, and it's just you and Fred, you may still be judged by Fred if you say "Jane already told me that she will give us the documents later," rather than using the he/him that Jane prefers.

And if you were asked to make a statement supporting a specific religion ? To wear a cross for example? Would you be equally calm?

"I don't do stuff like that."

That covered it for me in a similar situation.

Tbh the Non binary person is othering themselves, surely that's the whole point- "I'm special and not like OTHER people".

Does that apply to declarations of any of the protected characteristics? For example, would you think it silly if a team were asked to write straight/gay/bi on their badge, or Christian/Hindu/Jewish? Or is that no-one else's business and of no relevance to the workplace?

I would no more wear a pronoun badge at the request of a colleage
than I would a crucifix

I volunteer, and manage other volunteers, and am acutely aware of not shitting on the goodwill of people who give up their free time. This country would be genuinely fucked if all the middle aged and older women stopped volunteering.

It's really interesting how many responses are to appear to accept the pronoun badge but then "accidentally" hide it/not use it. It strikes me as much more honest to go for one of the "not for me thanks" replies.

The advantage of that is that it's honest and enables others to be more truthful as well. But as we know, people who expect pronoun compliance have a habit of reacting with hostility at anything other than fawning acceptance. So unless you're secure in a workplace, social group etc, there's often a risk to the honest individual.

It is however the VC has put her cards on the table "BeKind or BeMean".

Some people dont like drama and some cant be involved in drama.

The OP is not getting paid so the financial downside is removed.

The OP is working for free because (i assume) she sees value in the service she provides and wants to be able to continue to do so. As this involves team work direct acts can cause drama while indirect acts allow both her and the VC an opening to politly avoid drama.

I think we all had the first time that we felt that we had to ‘out’ ourselves as GC. So I get the feeling of it being exposing for you. But honestly, I think most of us would say it is fine. I’ve definitely had shock from a couple of people when I tell them what I think but nothing terrible has happened and mostly people have been glad as they agree. I’d not overthink it, you’ve been given clear permission to do this, it’s not like the bad old days when some of us were frightened of getting sacked if we did something like this.

"Sorry, this is very triggering for me. Please don't ask again."

Use the language of the movement back at it.

Perfect.