Pronouns? Do you visibly share yours?

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I'm surprised by the amount of folks who don't get that it's. not. about. you.

I'm a woman. I have a woman's name, I use she/her pronouns, I have never in my life had someone look at me and NOT know that I'm a woman, and pretty much everyone that I interact with professionally knows that I'm a woman.

I don't put my pronouns in my email sig so that folks know what pronouns to use with ME. I put pronouns in my email sig so that the 20-something new hire who would like to be treated with respect and called by the pronouns that they prefer can see the example of a leader in the organization publicly displaying pronouns and feel like it's not weird if they do the same.

I don't require ANYONE else to do it, but when you suggest that all allyship is performative, then you diminish folks who are doing any kind of allyship at all.

I do rather suspect that is the point, and while there's a long way on the scale of "grumpy because I think "they" is inherently plural" to blowing up an electrical substation -- it's still the same scale.

[/quote]

[b]The 20 something new hire has grown up to be an adult in pronoun world and knows they can use whatever pronouns they want.[/b] I don’t need to use work emails to set examples about private details of my life that I personally do not wish to define me at work. I don’t put disabilities or sexual orientation or mental health diagnoses in my email signatures either even though I want employees to be comfortable being who they are and asking for accommodations if needed. There are many ways to create an inclusive and welcoming work environment without needing to broadcast information about sex or gender or identity in every email. I want my emails to be communication about the work I am doing, not communication about my gender or gender identity or gender expression or sex.[/quote]

I actually have a 20-something colleague who did feel very uncomfortable being the only one at our office who announced their pronouns, to the extent they haven't come out to 3/4ths of the team because they don't want to have to make a big deal out of it. I think this is unfortunate, and it would be much healthier thing for us to have a mix of signature styles with the option for pronouns and some leaders using them and some not. Personally, I don't care either way (and know people who are viscerally uncomfortable with both pronouns and no pronouns) so I would go with the option that creates the most diversity (e.g., no pronouns if more people have them; pronouns if less people have them). The assumption that all trans/nonbinary/ambiguously gendered young people are hyperconfident in announcing their gender to the world is a big (and inaccurate) assumption and perhaps you think that because none of the closeted folks around you have felt comfortable enough to let you know.[/quote]

I am not saying every individual is comfortable but this is their world - their generation and the younger ones are primarliy those using the pronouns. What do you suggest we put in emails so that the lesbian new employee feels comfortable referrring to her girlfriend or the employee with low vision feels comfortable asking for larger print or the new hire with depression feels comfortable with a light therapy lamp at their desk or the new hire with chronic pain feels comfortable taking streching breaks or the new hire who is in menopause feels comfortable needing .... What is your solution to making everyone who has an invisible need for an inclusive accommodation comfortable in the workplace via email signature lines?

[Anonymous]

Yes. I'm a teacher. When students receive an email from me I want them to know it's ok to identify yourself as such.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised by the amount of folks who don't get that it's. not. about. you.

I'm a woman. I have a woman's name, I use she/her pronouns, I have never in my life had someone look at me and NOT know that I'm a woman, and pretty much everyone that I interact with professionally knows that I'm a woman.

I don't put my pronouns in my email sig so that folks know what pronouns to use with ME. I put pronouns in my email sig so that the 20-something new hire who would like to be treated with respect and called by the pronouns that they prefer can see the example of a leader in the organization publicly displaying pronouns and feel like it's not weird if they do the same.

I don't require ANYONE else to do it, but when you suggest that all allyship is performative, then you diminish folks who are doing any kind of allyship at all.

I do rather suspect that is the point, and while there's a long way on the scale of "grumpy because I think "they" is inherently plural" to blowing up an electrical substation -- it's still the same scale.

The 20 something new hire has grown up to be an adult in pronoun world and knows they can use whatever pronouns they want. I don’t need to use work emails to set examples about private details of my life that I personally do not wish to define me at work. I don’t put disabilities or sexual orientation or mental health diagnoses in my email signatures either even though I want employees to be comfortable being who they are and asking for accommodations if needed. There are many ways to create an inclusive and welcoming work environment without needing to broadcast information about sex or gender or identity in every email. I want my emails to be communication about the work I am doing, not communication about my gender or gender identity or gender expression or sex.

I actually have a 20-something colleague who did feel very uncomfortable being the only one at our office who announced their pronouns, to the extent they haven't come out to 3/4ths of the team because they don't want to have to make a big deal out of it. I think this is unfortunate, and it would be much healthier thing for us to have a mix of signature styles with the option for pronouns and some leaders using them and some not. Personally, I don't care either way (and know people who are viscerally uncomfortable with both pronouns and no pronouns) so I would go with the option that creates the most diversity (e.g., no pronouns if more people have them; pronouns if less people have them). The assumption that all trans/nonbinary/ambiguously gendered young people are hyperconfident in announcing their gender to the world is a big (and inaccurate) assumption and perhaps you think that because none of the closeted folks around you have felt comfortable enough to let you know.

I am not saying every individual is comfortable but this is their world - their generation and the younger ones are primarliy those using the pronouns. What do you suggest we put in emails so that the lesbian new employee feels comfortable referrring to her girlfriend or the employee with low vision feels comfortable asking for larger print or the new hire with depression feels comfortable with a light therapy lamp at their desk or the new hire with chronic pain feels comfortable taking streching breaks or the new hire who is in menopause feels comfortable needing .... What is your solution to making everyone who has an invisible need for an inclusive accommodation comfortable in the workplace via email signature lines?

I think to make the lesbian comfortable about referring to her girlfriend, when I invite her to bring a +1 to happy hour or the holiday party, I say, "Feel free to bring your partner" or "Spouses and partners and significant others are welcome." If I myself am queer (I am), I make a point of referring to *my* wife when we're doing premeeting chitchat so younger people at our firm know they don't have to pretend.

For disability inclusion, I say we proactively ask people what will make their work environment easier, and make a point of having diverse desk/work setups for senior leadership and tell them what parts of my work day I change to make myself more productive so they know it's okay to ask for these things.

Again, I am *not* advocating that everyone put pronouns in emails or be forced to announce them at the beginning of meetings. That puts an undue burden on lots of people for lots of totally valid reasons. But I do think having space for people who *want* to put pronouns in their email signature is polite and having leadership demonstrate that it's okay to use that space is important. It's also important for leadership to demonstrate that it's okay not to use that space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised by the amount of folks who don't get that it's. not. about. you.

I'm a woman. I have a woman's name, I use she/her pronouns, I have never in my life had someone look at me and NOT know that I'm a woman, and pretty much everyone that I interact with professionally knows that I'm a woman.

I don't put my pronouns in my email sig so that folks know what pronouns to use with ME. I put pronouns in my email sig so that the 20-something new hire who would like to be treated with respect and called by the pronouns that they prefer can see the example of a leader in the organization publicly displaying pronouns and feel like it's not weird if they do the same.

I don't require ANYONE else to do it, but when you suggest that all allyship is performative, then you diminish folks who are doing any kind of allyship at all.

I do rather suspect that is the point, and while there's a long way on the scale of "grumpy because I think "they" is inherently plural" to blowing up an electrical substation -- it's still the same scale.

The 20 something new hire has grown up to be an adult in pronoun world and knows they can use whatever pronouns they want. I don’t need to use work emails to set examples about private details of my life that I personally do not wish to define me at work. I don’t put disabilities or sexual orientation or mental health diagnoses in my email signatures either even though I want employees to be comfortable being who they are and asking for accommodations if needed. There are many ways to create an inclusive and welcoming work environment without needing to broadcast information about sex or gender or identity in every email. I want my emails to be communication about the work I am doing, not communication about my gender or gender identity or gender expression or sex.

I actually have a 20-something colleague who did feel very uncomfortable being the only one at our office who announced their pronouns, to the extent they haven't come out to 3/4ths of the team because they don't want to have to make a big deal out of it. I think this is unfortunate, and it would be much healthier thing for us to have a mix of signature styles with the option for pronouns and some leaders using them and some not. Personally, I don't care either way (and know people who are viscerally uncomfortable with both pronouns and no pronouns) so I would go with the option that creates the most diversity (e.g., no pronouns if more people have them; pronouns if less people have them). The assumption that all trans/nonbinary/ambiguously gendered young people are hyperconfident in announcing their gender to the world is a big (and inaccurate) assumption and perhaps you think that because none of the closeted folks around you have felt comfortable enough to let you know.

I am not saying every individual is comfortable but this is their world - their generation and the younger ones are primarliy those using the pronouns. What do you suggest we put in emails so that the lesbian new employee feels comfortable referrring to her girlfriend or the employee with low vision feels comfortable asking for larger print or the new hire with depression feels comfortable with a light therapy lamp at their desk or the new hire with chronic pain feels comfortable taking streching breaks or the new hire who is in menopause feels comfortable needing .... What is your solution to making everyone who has an invisible need for an inclusive accommodation comfortable in the workplace via email signature lines?

I think to make the lesbian comfortable about referring to her girlfriend, when I invite her to bring a +1 to happy hour or the holiday party, I say, "Feel free to bring your partner" or "Spouses and partners and significant others are welcome." If I myself am queer (I am), I make a point of referring to *my* wife when we're doing premeeting chitchat so younger people at our firm know they don't have to pretend.

For disability inclusion, I say we proactively ask people what will make their work environment easier, and make a point of having diverse desk/work setups for senior leadership and tell them what parts of my work day I change to make myself more productive so they know it's okay to ask for these things.

Again, I am *not* advocating that everyone put pronouns in emails or be forced to announce them at the beginning of meetings. That puts an undue burden on lots of people for lots of totally valid reasons. But I do think having space for people who *want* to put pronouns in their email signature is polite and having leadership demonstrate that it's okay to use that space is important. It's also important for leadership to demonstrate that it's okay not to use that space.

I agree. Your first examples show that it is possible to be inclusive without needing to make public institution wide announcements in your emails. As I said earlier, people can put whatever personal information in their signature that they want if that is important to them. I interact with one young employee whose pronoun preferences are quite complex and that individual has a line in the email signature that says "Please ask me about my preferred personal pronouns and name." I don't mind that at all and am willing to ask the individual what form of address I should be using that day since I know that is important to them and their gender identity and expression is for them part of who they are as a professional. Since that employee's pronoun preference are dynamic - it would be quite complicated to explain it all in an email signature.

[Anonymous]

I feel like this is one of those things that was conceived by crazies on the left. They are the same ones who have come up with many other crazy ideas (Latin X, ebonics, etc.)that have since went the way of the dodo. It's almost like one of those culture war topics like the bathrooms were a couple years ago. I have a couple of issues with this practice:

#1 Isn't They/Them plural? If it's not plural, I can't say that I recall anyone using they/them as plural in normal conversation.

#2 Why can't I just refer to you by your name?

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous]I actually have a 20-something colleague who did feel very uncomfortable being the only one at our office who announced their pronouns, to the extent they haven't come out to 3/4ths of the team because they don't want to have to make a big deal out of it. I think this is unfortunate, and it would be much healthier thing for us to have a mix of signature styles with the option for pronouns and some leaders using them and some not. Personally, I don't care either way (and know people who are viscerally uncomfortable with both pronouns and no pronouns) so I would go with the option that creates the most diversity (e.g., no pronouns if more people have them; pronouns if less people have them). The assumption that all trans/nonbinary/ambiguously gendered young people are hyperconfident in announcing their gender to the world is a big (and inaccurate) assumption and perhaps you think that because none of the closeted folks around you have felt comfortable enough to let you know.[/quote]

If this is the issue, then mandating pronouns in the signatures is the wrong way to go about doing this. Your college has only come out to 3/4 of the team. Mandating that people put their pronouns in the signature immediately outs them to the rest of the team.

Coming out is a personal decision and should be made at the comfort level of the individual. Forcing them to out themselves by a company policy is not the way to make them feel more included. It makes them feel self-conscious and possibly even anxious if there were reasons that they had not informed these other coworkers of their gender identity.

This gesture is a poor way to show support for an individual who is making an personal journey to their true self. It is far better to handle such things verbally or in-person. If this co-worker does not want to make an announcement or bring attention to their gender identity, then they can tell those who they are comfortable with and those individuals can ask whether this person wants to share the gender identity publicly to all coworkers. If they say yes, then those in the know, like you, can start to use the gender pronouns in appropriate settings, like discussing this person and their work in meetings. If someone questions the pronouns used, you can reply that "They/He/She prefers these pronouns" and you can help spread the news without the person making an announcement. On the other hand, if the individual wants to keep the pronouns used by those in the know, you can also respond accordingly and use either gender-neutral pronouns or use the pronouns that match their birth-gender as you would in any other case and leave it to the individual to decide who uses what pronouns.

Either way, the point is that company mandates and others sharing their pronouns in emails does not address the problem except for a very few individuals and in other cases, it is harmful to the individuals. So blanket policies like this or showing support like this are not guaranteed to solve the problem addressed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel like this is one of those things that was conceived by crazies on the left. They are the same ones who have come up with many other crazy ideas (Latin X, ebonics, etc.)that have since went the way of the dodo. It's almost like one of those culture war topics like the bathrooms were a couple years ago. I have a couple of issues with this practice:

#1 Isn't They/Them plural? If it's not plural, I can't say that I recall anyone using they/them as plural in normal conversation.

#2 Why can't I just refer to you by your name?

From: https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/25/677177

The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf. Except for the old-style language of that poem, its use of singular they to refer to an unnamed person seems very modern.

It's been used this way for centuries. It's not necessarily common, but has definitely be in use this way for a long time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised by the amount of folks who don't get that it's. not. about. you.

I'm a woman. I have a woman's name, I use she/her pronouns, I have never in my life had someone look at me and NOT know that I'm a woman, and pretty much everyone that I interact with professionally knows that I'm a woman.

I don't put my pronouns in my email sig so that folks know what pronouns to use with ME. I put pronouns in my email sig so that the 20-something new hire who would like to be treated with respect and called by the pronouns that they prefer can see the example of a leader in the organization publicly displaying pronouns and feel like it's not weird if they do the same.

I don't require ANYONE else to do it, but when you suggest that all allyship is performative, then you diminish folks who are doing any kind of allyship at all.

I do rather suspect that is the point, and while there's a long way on the scale of "grumpy because I think "they" is inherently plural" to blowing up an electrical substation -- it's still the same scale.

The 20 something new hire has grown up to be an adult in pronoun world and knows they can use whatever pronouns they want. I don’t need to use work emails to set examples about private details of my life that I personally do not wish to define me at work. I don’t put disabilities or sexual orientation or mental health diagnoses in my email signatures either even though I want employees to be comfortable being who they are and asking for accommodations if needed. There are many ways to create an inclusive and welcoming work environment without needing to broadcast information about sex or gender or identity in every email. I want my emails to be communication about the work I am doing, not communication about my gender or gender identity or gender expression or sex.

I actually have a 20-something colleague who did feel very uncomfortable being the only one at our office who announced their pronouns, to the extent they haven't come out to 3/4ths of the team because they don't want to have to make a big deal out of it. I think this is unfortunate, and it would be much healthier thing for us to have a mix of signature styles with the option for pronouns and some leaders using them and some not. Personally, I don't care either way (and know people who are viscerally uncomfortable with both pronouns and no pronouns) so I would go with the option that creates the most diversity (e.g., no pronouns if more people have them; pronouns if less people have them). The assumption that all trans/nonbinary/ambiguously gendered young people are hyperconfident in announcing their gender to the world is a big (and inaccurate) assumption and perhaps you think that because none of the closeted folks around you have felt comfortable enough to let you know.

I am not saying every individual is comfortable but this is their world - their generation and the younger ones are primarliy those using the pronouns. What do you suggest we put in emails so that the lesbian new employee feels comfortable referrring to her girlfriend or the employee with low vision feels comfortable asking for larger print or the new hire with depression feels comfortable with a light therapy lamp at their desk or the new hire with chronic pain feels comfortable taking streching breaks or the new hire who is in menopause feels comfortable needing .... What is your solution to making everyone who has an invisible need for an inclusive accommodation comfortable in the workplace via email signature lines?

I think to make the lesbian comfortable about referring to her girlfriend, when I invite her to bring a +1 to happy hour or the holiday party, I say, "Feel free to bring your partner" or "Spouses and partners and significant others are welcome." If I myself am queer (I am), I make a point of referring to *my* wife when we're doing premeeting chitchat so younger people at our firm know they don't have to pretend.

For disability inclusion, I say we proactively ask people what will make their work environment easier, and make a point of having diverse desk/work setups for senior leadership and tell them what parts of my work day I change to make myself more productive so they know it's okay to ask for these things.

Again, I am *not* advocating that everyone put pronouns in emails or be forced to announce them at the beginning of meetings. That puts an undue burden on lots of people for lots of totally valid reasons. But I do think having space for people who *want* to put pronouns in their email signature is polite and having leadership demonstrate that it's okay to use that space is important. It's also important for leadership to demonstrate that it's okay not to use that space.

I agree. Your first examples show that it is possible to be inclusive without needing to make public institution wide announcements in your emails. As I said earlier, people can put whatever personal information in their signature that they want if that is important to them. I interact with one young employee whose pronoun preferences are quite complex and that individual has a line in the email signature that says "Please ask me about my preferred personal pronouns and name." I don't mind that at all and am willing to ask the individual what form of address I should be using that day since I know that is important to them and their gender identity and expression is for them part of who they are as a professional. Since that employee's pronoun preference are dynamic - it would be quite complicated to explain it all in an email signature.

Seriously? How complicated can it be? That strikes me as attention seeking more than anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised by the amount of folks who don't get that it's. not. about. you.

I'm a woman. I have a woman's name, I use she/her pronouns, I have never in my life had someone look at me and NOT know that I'm a woman, and pretty much everyone that I interact with professionally knows that I'm a woman.

I don't put my pronouns in my email sig so that folks know what pronouns to use with ME. I put pronouns in my email sig so that the 20-something new hire who would like to be treated with respect and called by the pronouns that they prefer can see the example of a leader in the organization publicly displaying pronouns and feel like it's not weird if they do the same.

I don't require ANYONE else to do it, but when you suggest that all allyship is performative, then you diminish folks who are doing any kind of allyship at all.

I do rather suspect that is the point, and while there's a long way on the scale of "grumpy because I think "they" is inherently plural" to blowing up an electrical substation -- it's still the same scale.

Also, don't I already have your name if you sent me an email?

The 20 something new hire has grown up to be an adult in pronoun world and knows they can use whatever pronouns they want. I don’t need to use work emails to set examples about private details of my life that I personally do not wish to define me at work. I don’t put disabilities or sexual orientation or mental health diagnoses in my email signatures either even though I want employees to be comfortable being who they are and asking for accommodations if needed. There are many ways to create an inclusive and welcoming work environment without needing to broadcast information about sex or gender or identity in every email. I want my emails to be communication about the work I am doing, not communication about my gender or gender identity or gender expression or sex.

I actually have a 20-something colleague who did feel very uncomfortable being the only one at our office who announced their pronouns, to the extent they haven't come out to 3/4ths of the team because they don't want to have to make a big deal out of it. I think this is unfortunate, and it would be much healthier thing for us to have a mix of signature styles with the option for pronouns and some leaders using them and some not. Personally, I don't care either way (and know people who are viscerally uncomfortable with both pronouns and no pronouns) so I would go with the option that creates the most diversity (e.g., no pronouns if more people have them; pronouns if less people have them). The assumption that all trans/nonbinary/ambiguously gendered young people are hyperconfident in announcing their gender to the world is a big (and inaccurate) assumption and perhaps you think that because none of the closeted folks around you have felt comfortable enough to let you know.

I am not saying every individual is comfortable but this is their world - their generation and the younger ones are primarliy those using the pronouns. What do you suggest we put in emails so that the lesbian new employee feels comfortable referrring to her girlfriend or the employee with low vision feels comfortable asking for larger print or the new hire with depression feels comfortable with a light therapy lamp at their desk or the new hire with chronic pain feels comfortable taking streching breaks or the new hire who is in menopause feels comfortable needing .... What is your solution to making everyone who has an invisible need for an inclusive accommodation comfortable in the workplace via email signature lines?

I think to make the lesbian comfortable about referring to her girlfriend, when I invite her to bring a +1 to happy hour or the holiday party, I say, "Feel free to bring your partner" or "Spouses and partners and significant others are welcome." If I myself am queer (I am), I make a point of referring to *my* wife when we're doing premeeting chitchat so younger people at our firm know they don't have to pretend.

For disability inclusion, I say we proactively ask people what will make their work environment easier, and make a point of having diverse desk/work setups for senior leadership and tell them what parts of my work day I change to make myself more productive so they know it's okay to ask for these things.

Again, I am *not* advocating that everyone put pronouns in emails or be forced to announce them at the beginning of meetings. That puts an undue burden on lots of people for lots of totally valid reasons. But I do think having space for people who *want* to put pronouns in their email signature is polite and having leadership demonstrate that it's okay to use that space is important. It's also important for leadership to demonstrate that it's okay not to use that space.

I agree. Your first examples show that it is possible to be inclusive without needing to make public institution wide announcements in your emails. As I said earlier, people can put whatever personal information in their signature that they want if that is important to them. I interact with one young employee whose pronoun preferences are quite complex and that individual has a line in the email signature that says "Please ask me about my preferred personal pronouns and name." I don't mind that at all and am willing to ask the individual what form of address I should be using that day since I know that is important to them and their gender identity and expression is for them part of who they are as a professional. Since that employee's pronoun preference are dynamic - it would be quite complicated to explain it all in an email signature.

Seriously? How complicated can it be? That strikes me as attention seeking more than anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised by the amount of folks who don't get that it's. not. about. you.

I'm a woman. I have a woman's name, I use she/her pronouns, I have never in my life had someone look at me and NOT know that I'm a woman, and pretty much everyone that I interact with professionally knows that I'm a woman.

I don't put my pronouns in my email sig so that folks know what pronouns to use with ME. I put pronouns in my email sig so that the 20-something new hire who would like to be treated with respect and called by the pronouns that they prefer can see the example of a leader in the organization publicly displaying pronouns and feel like it's not weird if they do the same.

I don't require ANYONE else to do it, but when you suggest that all allyship is performative, then you diminish folks who are doing any kind of allyship at all.

I do rather suspect that is the point, and while there's a long way on the scale of "grumpy because I think "they" is inherently plural" to blowing up an electrical substation -- it's still the same scale.

The 20 something new hire has grown up to be an adult in pronoun world and knows they can use whatever pronouns they want. I don’t need to use work emails to set examples about private details of my life that I personally do not wish to define me at work. I don’t put disabilities or sexual orientation or mental health diagnoses in my email signatures either even though I want employees to be comfortable being who they are and asking for accommodations if needed. There are many ways to create an inclusive and welcoming work environment without needing to broadcast information about sex or gender or identity in every email. I want my emails to be communication about the work I am doing, not communication about my gender or gender identity or gender expression or sex.

I actually have a 20-something colleague who did feel very uncomfortable being the only one at our office who announced their pronouns, to the extent they haven't come out to 3/4ths of the team because they don't want to have to make a big deal out of it. I think this is unfortunate, and it would be much healthier thing for us to have a mix of signature styles with the option for pronouns and some leaders using them and some not. Personally, I don't care either way (and know people who are viscerally uncomfortable with both pronouns and no pronouns) so I would go with the option that creates the most diversity (e.g., no pronouns if more people have them; pronouns if less people have them). The assumption that all trans/nonbinary/ambiguously gendered young people are hyperconfident in announcing their gender to the world is a big (and inaccurate) assumption and perhaps you think that because none of the closeted folks around you have felt comfortable enough to let you know.

I am not saying every individual is comfortable but this is their world - their generation and the younger ones are primarliy those using the pronouns. What do you suggest we put in emails so that the lesbian new employee feels comfortable referrring to her girlfriend or the employee with low vision feels comfortable asking for larger print or the new hire with depression feels comfortable with a light therapy lamp at their desk or the new hire with chronic pain feels comfortable taking streching breaks or the new hire who is in menopause feels comfortable needing .... What is your solution to making everyone who has an invisible need for an inclusive accommodation comfortable in the workplace via email signature lines?

I think to make the lesbian comfortable about referring to her girlfriend, when I invite her to bring a +1 to happy hour or the holiday party, I say, "Feel free to bring your partner" or "Spouses and partners and significant others are welcome." If I myself am queer (I am), I make a point of referring to *my* wife when we're doing premeeting chitchat so younger people at our firm know they don't have to pretend.

For disability inclusion, I say we proactively ask people what will make their work environment easier, and make a point of having diverse desk/work setups for senior leadership and tell them what parts of my work day I change to make myself more productive so they know it's okay to ask for these things.

Again, I am *not* advocating that everyone put pronouns in emails or be forced to announce them at the beginning of meetings. That puts an undue burden on lots of people for lots of totally valid reasons. But I do think having space for people who *want* to put pronouns in their email signature is polite and having leadership demonstrate that it's okay to use that space is important. It's also important for leadership to demonstrate that it's okay not to use that space.

I agree. Your first examples show that it is possible to be inclusive without needing to make public institution wide announcements in your emails. As I said earlier, people can put whatever personal information in their signature that they want if that is important to them. I interact with one young employee whose pronoun preferences are quite complex and that individual has a line in the email signature that says "Please ask me about my preferred personal pronouns and name." I don't mind that at all and am willing to ask the individual what form of address I should be using that day since I know that is important to them and their gender identity and expression is for them part of who they are as a professional. Since that employee's pronoun preference are dynamic - it would be quite complicated to explain it all in an email signature.

Seriously? How complicated can it be? That strikes me as attention seeking more than anything.

Also, don't I already have your name if you sent me an email?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like this is one of those things that was conceived by crazies on the left. They are the same ones who have come up with many other crazy ideas (Latin X, ebonics, etc.)that have since went the way of the dodo. It's almost like one of those culture war topics like the bathrooms were a couple years ago. I have a couple of issues with this practice:

#1 Isn't They/Them plural? If it's not plural, I can't say that I recall anyone using they/them as plural in normal conversation.

#2 Why can't I just refer to you by your name?

From: https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/25/677177

The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf. Except for the old-style language of that poem, its use of singular they to refer to an unnamed person seems very modern.

It's been used this way for centuries. It's not necessarily common, but has definitely be in use this way for a long time.

Language changes over time. If nobody uses they or them as pronouns, it seems odd that people would attempt to use the word in this way. People are going to look at you like you're a weirdo if you use they or them as singular. So go for it I guess loll

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually have a 20-something colleague who did feel very uncomfortable being the only one at our office who announced their pronouns, to the extent they haven't come out to 3/4ths of the team because they don't want to have to make a big deal out of it. I think this is unfortunate, and it would be much healthier thing for us to have a mix of signature styles with the option for pronouns and some leaders using them and some not. Personally, I don't care either way (and know people who are viscerally uncomfortable with both pronouns and no pronouns) so I would go with the option that creates the most diversity (e.g., no pronouns if more people have them; pronouns if less people have them). The assumption that all trans/nonbinary/ambiguously gendered young people are hyperconfident in announcing their gender to the world is a big (and inaccurate) assumption and perhaps you think that because none of the closeted folks around you have felt comfortable enough to let you know.

If this is the issue, then mandating pronouns in the signatures is the wrong way to go about doing this. Your college has only come out to 3/4 of the team. Mandating that people put their pronouns in the signature immediately outs them to the rest of the team.

Coming out is a personal decision and should be made at the comfort level of the individual. Forcing them to out themselves by a company policy is not the way to make them feel more included. It makes them feel self-conscious and possibly even anxious if there were reasons that they had not informed these other coworkers of their gender identity.

This gesture is a poor way to show support for an individual who is making an personal journey to their true self. It is far better to handle such things verbally or in-person. If this co-worker does not want to make an announcement or bring attention to their gender identity, then they can tell those who they are comfortable with and those individuals can ask whether this person wants to share the gender identity publicly to all coworkers. If they say yes, then those in the know, like you, can start to use the gender pronouns in appropriate settings, like discussing this person and their work in meetings. If someone questions the pronouns used, you can reply that "They/He/She prefers these pronouns" and you can help spread the news without the person making an announcement. On the other hand, if the individual wants to keep the pronouns used by those in the know, you can also respond accordingly and use either gender-neutral pronouns or use the pronouns that match their birth-gender as you would in any other case and leave it to the individual to decide who uses what pronouns.

Either way, the point is that company mandates and others sharing their pronouns in emails does not address the problem except for a very few individuals and in other cases, it is harmful to the individuals. So blanket policies like this or showing support like this are not guaranteed to solve the problem addressed.

I'm the PP. My colleague, when they came out to me, specifically asked about why no one at our office had pronouns in email/was introduced with pronouns/etc. because that was something they wanted to be able to share if it was part of the norm. They did not want to rock the boat and make a big issue out of it, so they've been trying to awkwardly come out to people individually which is extra hard to do in a remote environment. I'm pretty sure we're going to lose them which I think will be a loss for the team since they're a really good engineer.

Perhaps my post wasn't clear: I think mandating pronouns in email is a TERRIBLE idea. I think having an *option* to put pronouns in emails having some senior leadership have them and some not is an inclusive and appropriate idea.

[Anonymous]

They are in my email signature at work. Most colleagues also include theirs. Most client/vendor emails have them unless the person is older. And yes, I can tell if a person is older based on their email. Older people love having email backgrounds, always use a colored comic sans font, and type Thanks, First Name Last Name even though their automatic signature is below with the same thing, ha.

I just went to a conference where we had the option to add our pronouns under our names on the badges. Most everyone did.

I don't see the big deal.

I do think it's fun when someone tries to be a smartass and puts something like "my pronouns are screw you/nope/loser" and then others use them normally without bother. I saw this during online training I was in. The moderator of the online discussion used AMERICAN MALE each time he needed to refer to that person. It was great. "AMERICAN MALE makes a great point about the ROI on blah blah blah."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are in my email signature at work. Most colleagues also include theirs. Most client/vendor emails have them unless the person is older. And yes, I can tell if a person is older based on their email. Older people love having email backgrounds, always use a colored comic sans font, and type Thanks, First Name Last Name even though their automatic signature is below with the same thing, ha.

I just went to a conference where we had the option to add our pronouns under our names on the badges. Most everyone did.

I don't see the big deal.

I do think it's fun when someone tries to be a smartass and puts something like "my pronouns are screw you/nope/loser" and then others use them normally without bother. I saw this during online training I was in. The moderator of the online discussion used AMERICAN MALE each time he needed to refer to that person. It was great. "AMERICAN MALE makes a great point about the ROI on blah blah blah."

49-year-old here who doesn't use email backgrounds and despises comic sans. I do type thanks when it's called for. It's just.being.nice.
I don't sign with my pronoun. It's assumed and honestly, it's no one's business. Why should we force people to do that? If it's a work email, there's a 95% chance, I'm going to refer to you using your name.

[Anonymous]

No, and never will. But I do think we should come up with a gender neutral but formal way to refer to each other professionally. Gender seems irrelevant in the workplace.