Ditto for me from male perspective.
The fact that I want you to actually ask a question rather than framing up a “gotcha” so that you can point out the (imagined) inconsistency or hypocrisy or something of my answer just shows that I’m actually trying to have a discussion about this issue. The rest is something you’re making up.
Really, you probably shouldn’t make statements asserting as fact some made-up thing about what I believe.
First of all, I’m not sure what the costs to any group of permitting people at a company to insert their desired pronouns into the firm’s internal facebook page or email sigs are.
What cost, to what group? I don’t see it. If someone in, say, the accounting department of my firm prefers to be known as “she/her/hers,” what does that cost you, or anyone else?
Second, going along with such a policy, and even putting one’s own pronouns out there, if one chooses to do so, aren’t endorsing any ideology or even necessarily indicative of a belief that someone’s gender may not match their biological sex.
It’s just an acknowledgement that some people prefer to be addressed a certain way.
Seems like basic courtesy to me, that’s all.
I mean, sure, set up and knock down as many strawmen as you want. I’m not a moderator. Some companies poison the air and water. I’m opposed to that, too. Some companies lock their workers into factories that burn down. There are all kinds of downsides to that.
The OP asks what are the downsides to putting your pronouns into your profile. It doesn’t ask what are the downsides to companies pressuring employees to do so. But, sure, discuss whatever you want – I hear the price of tea in China is on the rise these days. What do you think are the downsides of that?
I can’t speak for Martini_Enfield, of course, but I work at a pretty good firm. I like working there, so I’ve stayed with the firm longer than I’ve ever stayed anywhere else.
But I gotta say our HR department seems to have too much time on its collective hands. They’re forever announcing special presentations and speakers and affinity groups that are getting so specific I’d imagine they’d have trouble finding two people to join. And initiatives (soon forgotten) to “raise awareness” of this or that.
It’s a great firm. The HR department (like all HR departments, in my experience) can get a little silly sometimes. It’s pretty much harmless.
I meant that if they present as male, they use male pronouns and the same for female. I may not initially know Tendai’s pronouns, but when I’m on a call with them, on a video conference, or see their profile pic, their gender is typically obvious and so are their associated pronouns that I assume. I’ve never worked with someone who has presented as one gender but uses other pronouns. I have worked with transgender people, but they present as their desired gender and use the associated pronouns.
And in the general population, isn’t transgender like .5% of the population, so about 1 in 200 people? And even then, I would guess that many transgender present consistent with their gender. So how many people in general are going to use pronouns which are not consistent with how they present? 1 in 400? 1 in 1000? It’s just not going to be that common in most companies that there is a person who uses pronouns which are not obvious from how they present. I’m sure there are companies and industries which tend to have a lot of transgender and otherwise gender fluid people so it makes sense there, but that’s not the case in most companies. But the issue of gender neutral and foreign names is extremely common, yet we have generally not needed to put pronouns in our sigs to figure things out.
Companies pressuring people to do so may come directly from a sizeable number of people choosing to do so voluntarily.
er…
I cannot believe that you seriously think those are analogous to the subjects being raised in this thread
That’s been the number of people who will tell others their trans identity when folks with that identity is profoundly marginalized and oppressed. A more recent estimate says that more than 9% of young people are gender-diverse (i.e., transgender or nonbinary). I don’t know that there’s been corroboration of this finding, but it does suggest that, as transgender folk gain more public recognition and respect, the number of people who self-identify as trans will increase dramatically.
No, but it does make it easier.
And non-binary people rarely “look” obviously non-binary.
“Typically” is not the same as “always”, I can think, offhand, of at least 5 foreign colleagues that I’ve spoken to in Teams chats where I’d have no idea of their gender if I didn’t know their title (which is a mandatory field in our internal systems), and how would that help me if their title is “Dr”? Not everyone turns their camera on in calls, and not everyone is blazingly obviously one seeming gender even then.
That’s as may be, but it’s more like 6% in my division of our company. And that’s just the out trans people, not the non-binaries, which are another 6% that I know about. And then there’s the cis people who prefer they/them pronouns at work, which numbers at 9% (I’m now one of those).
How would you know? How can you know (as opposed to assume), unless you ask?
We don’t put them in our sigs. They’re in our Outlook profiles. Optional at the moment, but something like half my regular respondents use it. It does seem, from a quick scan of the company directory, that the biggest holdouts are the USA, South America and Japan. Biggest uptake seems to be Europe, Australia, Canada and South Africa (that last probably because we’re a smaller regional branch with 1 out trans woman and 2 vocal enbies included)
Can we explore this a little deeper?
Anecdotally, I’m very much pro-: remembrance day, LGBT rights, environment, military service members and veterans, BLM and human rights in general. At no point will you find me wearing or displaying any of the associated symbols (of which there are many), or participating in outward shows of support. If asked, I’ll tell you. But I won’t advertise it.
Now, what do you imagine you know about me when you notice my lack of outward support about these issues? And why would you leap to a conclusion about my priorities?
Not using pronouns in my corporate sig is not an outward show of willingness to support (or tolerate) a hostile environment towards trans people in the workplace. What it is, in fact, is my demonstration of non-othering. It is a non-virtue signaled practice that they can expect to be treated no differently than any other person with whom I interact professionally or personally.
Additionally, because I present exactly as you would expect someone who looks like me would present (i.e he/him/his), I prefer not to insult people by stating the obvious. I’d also prefer to be recognized for how I actually treat people, not by signaling how they might expect to be treated before even having met me. Particularly when 99% of the time I’d be signaling to people to whom the signal doesn’t even apply.
I think people are too hung up on this issue of “virtue signaling.” This phrase has become another right-wing bugaboo about PC culture run amok.
I’ll say it again: Trans and non-binary folks are asking cisgender folks (like me) to do this small thing to help them. There is no harm in it to me, so I do. That’s it. No big deal. There’s no “signalling” about how awesome I am. It’s just a simple courtesy.
If you’re having trouble with the idea, just imagine a good friend, who happens to be trans, asked you politely: “Hey friend, if you don’t mind, it would be great if you would put your pronouns in your email sig. It would help me and others like me out a little.” Then act accordingly.
These two statements are contradictory. You are endorsing the othering of anyone whose presentation is not quite as obvious as yours.
And anyone who is insulted that you indicate you use “he” pronouns must really get upset at all the forms that ask you title, and offer “Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms”. In fact, they must struggle with their reactions quite a lot.
There is nothing I can do about that. I cannot do anything about someone’s disability, or stature, or various other things that makes them somehow different to the general standard in a larger population. All I can do is accept them and treat them with respect and inclusion.
I’m sorry, I’m not able to parse this. What are you saying here?
Online and on the phone I am often mistaken for the opposite sex. In most circumstances I have no interest correcting that perception.
In emails and bios I don’t puzzle over assigning genders and would use their given name along with they their them in correspondence if I didn’t know or want to assume.
I am saying that no person who successfully interacts in society, a society that routinely asks you to specify that your title is “Mr”, is going to take offense at you for “stating the obvious” by also indicating that your pronoun is “he”.
That’s not to say someone might be surprised it taken aback if they’ve never seen this before. Nor that someone might be offended by the “political correctness” of it, since somehow, being polite in the "wrong"way is offensive in some circles. But no one will be offended that you think they can’t recognize your gender.
I suppose I am operating from a position of default. By default, you can make an assumption about my gender/pronoun and will almost certainly guess right. If your gender/pronoun is unlikely to align with the default assumption I would likely make, then you might choose to let me know that in advance, or correct me if I make a wrong assumption. You may then reasonably expect me to address you by your stated preference and I will certainly make every effort to do so.
Why is it wrong to continue to operate with default assumptions and make corrections as needed? After all, by use of example, you may have made an assumption about my priorities earlier based on my lack of outward signal. I corrected you. We moved on.
If you’re going to bring up another issue that you think is related, you could at least say so. “I’d like to explore a related issue – I’m worried that companies may require or pressure employees to state their genders, and I’m opposed to that. Who here would support such a policy?” I, for example, would be opposed to such a policy. Instead, you bring it up and are against it as if you’re arguing against someone here. It’s the very definition of building a strawman. But, you do you. I’m not a mod. I just think it’s impolite and bad form to move a thread in a different direction without at least acknowledging that you’d like to discuss something off-topic, but related.
Thank you for stating it more clearly than I apparently can.
This has been a problem for women and minorities for ages. For the longest time, the default is straight, white, male and it automatically puts people who don’t fall into that category at a disadvantage. It has been a problem in medical fields, in car safety, in AI training, and even in camera exposure calculations.
I hear what you’re saying but I’m not sure the scope of this discussion should include all the social and cultural issues you’ve mentioned. Can we legitimately compare the scale and scope of misogyny with pronoun tagging?