Ask HN: Does your employer want you to state pronouns in email signature? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Does your employer want you to state pronouns in email signature?

38 pointsflash_tier131 comments

Disclaimer: I am LGBT / neutral regarding the the use of pronouns.

I work for a large Tech US multinational. We are now being recommended (not compulsory) to include our preferred pronouns in our email signature going forward.

My case: my social circle is all politically left leaning to various degrees, however I don't think any of them use pronouns on social media. Most of my team were completely bemused when this was raised in staff as they genuinely did not know that stating pronouns was a thing.

I am interested to know peoples thoughts:

How widespread this is across industry? Do you think this is a good/bad initiative?

View on HN

I am LGBT and not in favor of it being pressured or de-facto compulsory. I would hope it was popular enough that people understood what it meant so that trans people can have more acceptance and understanding. I don't have it in my email signature, but if my company released a policy saying it was acceptable, I might add it. I would probably not add it without management permission since it is their choice how they want to present their brand to their clients. I think strongly pushing it on straight people is more likely to create a backlash and create a counter-movement.

I’m trans and agree with this, though I offer another reason to avoid making it compulsory.

Before I came out I felt very awkward with regards to my own pronoun display. I wasn’t ready on one hand and on the other I felt terrible seeing other pronouns even if it was attached to my deadname only.

I’d encourage people to do it if they’re comfortable with it on a personal level as it can be a very personal thing. I also want to thank all of those who do add it. It’s a big deal for many of us and can make a real difference in exchange for very little effort.

this is very true, when you indicate a pronoun preference that doesn't sync up with your presentation of gender, people seem to take it as something you're happy to argue about or explain. there's this idea that you are now responsible to them for an explanation and justification. it's crazy.

i use they/them and have had to respond to "you don't look any different", and have to inform the person that i don't feel the need to "perform" my gender to their expectations. it's mine and it is how i want it to be, not how they envision it to be.

Diversity questions aside, some given names are ambiguous. Some names are not, but may have different (assumed) genders depending on the language. In those cases it may be helpful to add a "Mrs"/"Mr" or similar, just to save people the embarrassment of addressing a woman as a man or vice versa. And isn't a "Mr"/"Mrs" a sort of pronoun spec as well? You're saying "use the usual pronouns for females/males".

This.

Even in the West, we have plenty of unisex names that could easily fit both men and women. E.g., "Alex", "Morgan", "Reese", "Taylor", etc.

For non-Western names, not everyone would be familiar with the cultural context behind the language's naming schemes or gender context.

Yep, in France it is recommended that if you have a non-Western name, you put "monsieur" or "madame" in front of your name on CVs, etc. to help prevent confusion on the part of potential readers.

A large question, however, is why gender is relevant on a CV...

If you're not sure, you can always just use the person's given name instead of a pronoun. This works 100% of the time, while pronouns in a signature block aren't very helpful if you're referring to someone who got CCed but has not replied to an email chain.

Often but not always. Given name is too informal in some situations. Completely avoiding pronouns can sound awkward too.

The OP mentioned the technology industry, which tends to be pretty informal. At least personally, the vast majority of my correspondence uses first names rather than honorifics. I agree that it can be a bit stilted, but it's better than awkwardly mixing up a person's gender.

They said they worked in tech. They asked about industry generally.

Follow up question, given that women have been in the workplace for 50+ years, why wasn't it an issue back then, and only presented itself now?

It was. People with ambiguous names lived with it, correcting people after the fact. So did long-haired men and short-haired women. They weren't happy about it, but didn't have a good way to fix it.

Now they do. The solution was always available, of course, but there wasn't much pressure to implement it because it was merely a nuisance. It's more than a nuisance for people whose pronouns change or whose physical appearance leads people to the wrong pronouns. So they decided to implement the solution, along with people who are sympathetic to putting for the minimal effort to help them.

Gender roles were stricter too. Business correspondence used honorifics more. People with "ethnic" names changed them to fit in.

This is fine, but here's a possible potentially technical (not political) issue that I see.

Looking at it from the practical point of view, I now have to address that person by their pronoun in the contents of the E-mail I write. So, what happens if there are several people included and some or many of them each have their own preferred pronoun. I have to thread very carefully in every part of my Email not to step on someone's toes. I mean I'm looking at this table [0] here and I imagine I have to make a look up table for everyone that uses a pronoun should I write stuff to several parties.

Is this really practical? Are there any better solutions?

0 - https://uwm.edu/lgbtrc/support/gender-pronouns

Everyone uses pronouns. He or she mostly. They sometimes. Anything else very rarely.

That's right. I use they/them. My question remains, though. True, it might be rare now, but it doesn't necessarily going to be rare in the future.

People accept they because it was an English pronoun already. They'll stop using he and she before they accept custom pronouns.

Well, my point was not about accepting or not accepting it. I have no issue with that.

My issues is that it would be hard for me personally to write an Email to several different people with different gender pronouns. I was asking if there are alternatives or maybe even similar situations in other cultures/languages that might hint to a more general solution.

It seems I was not clear enough, hence the downvotes above.

The general solution in most if not all cultures is not allowing what you're worried about. Some languages don't have pronouns. Some just have gender neutral pronouns. Some have gendered and neutral pronouns.

Some cultures have 4 or 5 genders. But their systems wouldn't work in English speaking cultures where trans men and women identify as just men and women.

I work for a large Valley software company, and they don't require pronouns or even recommend them, but I do see a few people put them in their signature, mostly in HR/recruiting.

I have two reasons why I don't like the idea of this becoming widespread, at least for now:

- I get that many people are sincere in believing this will help those with non-traditional identities, but I think there are also people who see this as an opportunity to get everyone to enact a drama which reinforces a political view of society as having widespread oppression, victimhood and injustice, and I don't agree with that view.

- Medical opinion seems genuinely divided on whether much of the huge increase in the last few years in trans / non-binary identities among teenagers is real or part of the confusion that everyone goes through as hormones kick in and we form our identities. We may simply be moving too fast on this. We need time to let society figure out if this is something substantial, beneficial and sustained, or something that'll decline and mostly disappear in a decade or two.

I work at a very left-leaning SV unicorn. Most people don’t advertise their pronouns, but quite a few do. I’m mildly peeved by this. To me the practice feels like taking off one’s lower body half garment to expose the genitalia. “See? This is my gender.” What difference does this make in a professional context? Our culture has put so much emphasis on treating all genders (or no gender) exactly the same: that was the right thing to do. Then why should we be wallowing in who has what and how they use it? It’s an irrelevant distraction. Do the job, go home, and be whatever you want.

I don't understand this point if view. I see it like stating your name - it lets people know what to call you. It doesn't have any relationship to what your genitalia are.

In addition to stating the name as the identity, it would be best to state gender, pronoun, and why not also race and religion? They are all part of identity.

Better not. The professional signature is not mean to show your private identity. It is supposed to identify your professional identity, which should not include race or gender. Your private e-mail signature can include unicorns, your work signature should be kept professional and that means excluding private data.

In some job functions, you do not even state the name - you are simply a representative of the company. First line support is often like that. The "Jane" you think you meet in a support chat may be Asmee or Ananya in real life.

> your work signature should be kept professional and that means excluding private data.

Unless you live in complete isolation your gender is not private. As soon as someone sees your appearance or hears your voice they will subconsciously associate you with a gender. And if that association is often incorrect then what's wrong with avoiding awkward situations?

We don't mention ethnicity or religion because they're not relevant for communication with business partners. Genders are, due to how our language works.

I wouldn't enforce mentioning pronouns as in the majority of cases it's simply unnecessary, but if someone has a problem with that detail in an email signature that tells a lot more about them, enough for me to reconsider working with them. Because no, it's not an important thing for me, but if someone thinks themselves as too professional for such little things they're probably not a pleasant person.

you don't use race or religion when referring to someone in polite conversation. i've never heard someone say "well that's not what black islamic he thinks" because it's unnatural. a pronoun serves as a shorthand or generalization to inform the listener about whom you're speaking of, in a way that is general but specific enough to choose an actor out of the context.

The other side of this is that transgender people do exist and there can be some benefit to having many people announce their pronouns rather than just expecting transgender people to call attention to themselves by doing so. People have various opinions about whether this sort of cover is helpful, but this is the motivation behind encouraging cis people to share their pronouns.

> To me the practice feels like taking off one’s lower body half garment to expose the genitalia.

Do you feel the same way about Mr/Mrs titles?

Yeah it feels incredibly old fashioned and stilted when someone refers to me as "Mister" or "Sir" or anything like that.

Well we have to use he/she all the time in the English language in a professional context so i don't really see how it's waving your gender in everyone's face.

I do agree that there is a lot of attention focused on use of pronouns at the moment though, which is why i posed the question to learn more about community opinion in the first place.

Frequent communication with coworkers is part of doing the job, and just like you wouldn't refer to a male boss with "Mrs." some people would prefer being called differently than what most would assume by default. I don't see how that is wrong.

And usually it's not about being "whatever you want", people are what they are.

gender and sex are not correlated. one is a preference and the other a biological status. gender indicates to people where you view your place in the social structure, sex describes your physical or hormonal status

(not one to one correlation, good points)

They're absolutely correlated. The correlation coefficient isn't 1.0, though.

I don't think "correlated" is the word you're looking for here.

We are not required to do this by business, however there is now state legislature that requires that any job posting must include explicit naming of genders male/female/diverse. That is männlich/weiblich/divers in German (m/w/d abbreviated, you will find it on every job posting or you face serious fines).

Most people call it männlich/weiß/deutsch already, which translates to male/white/German.

I don't think it is a good initiative. Acceptance cannot be enforced and this is something that gets on peoples nerves. The gender activists constantly try to create new spellings and words and I have never seen it adopted naturally aside from places where it is enforced.

Maybe it will come with time, but people only started to not give gender a second thought.

I also think this kind of legislation is created by people that are behind the general population on topics like gender, where everyone has their own opinions, which is completely fine.

> We are not required to do this by business, however there is now state legislature that requires that any job posting must include explicit naming of genders male/female/diverse. That is männlich/weiblich/divers in German (m/w/d abbreviated, you will find it on every job posting or you face serious fines).

I don't get, why would job postings (as in, the ad for the job, not the candidate's application for the job) require gender? Are the job postings like "we want a programmer and we expect him to be male"?

The short answer: German is not English.

The German language allows for both male and female forms of most job descriptions(like with actor and actress). It doesn't help that we have a male, female and neutral form of "the" which are seemingly randomly used for certain words, and often also differently when used in a plural form.

This mixed with gender debates has lead to a lot of controversy and many more or less wild suggestions for "fixing" the language.

The explicit mention of male/female has been mandatory for quite a while, and now that "diverse" was added as a third officially recognised gender this is now required as well. The whole reasoning behind this is that hiring decisions must not be based on gender, so companies also have to clearly indicate that - whether that actually reflects reality is another can of worms.

I think a big part of the problem is that there is so much gendered language in german. So there are no progammers, there are male programmers (Programmierer) and female programmers (Programmiererin), which leads to both forms or short forms being used (Programmierer/in) in these postings to be inclusive. But I don't even know if there is an accepted neutral form of the word if you wanted to address someone non-binary.

So, while the whole (m/w/d) thing is kind of silly, it on the other hand makes it clear, that whatever gendered form you use, you don't actually care about gender.

I really hope we can someday find acceptable neutral forms for these words. It would make many things much easier in german.

From my high school German decades ago, I remember that all nouns have a built-in gender, which changes articles and adjectives around the words. Has the recent inclusion trend affected the language? Do you have to say der/die Lampe, ein/eine Stuhl in order to be inclusive? Or do you just use das for everything? Or has it not affected how you say inanimate objects?

It hasn't really affected the language outside of some fringe groups and doing what you suggest is the kind of behavior that gets regularly made fun of when someone tries it.

For most germans, this seems silly, since we don't know or care why specific objects have a specific gender. Why are spoons male, forks female and knives neuter? Who knows? But then again, using the wrong pronoun still often sounds really weird to us, so no just using "das" for everything.

But of course, there are words where it can matter, especially since der/die/das are also used to refer to peoples positions for example. So I always thought having a neutral word accepted by others like 'the' in english could help german to get easier for everyone to learn while also making many things more gender neutral.

Incidentally, the language is changing here, but not because of gender issues, but rather because we incorporated many foreign words, often english, in the last decades and also many new immigrants have come to germany with not as good a grasp on the language. So, if you ask People for example which pronoun to use for "Blog", you will get three different answers. And while people poke fun at it, it is also not unusual to hear someone say something like "der Frau". People then just assume you are not very fluent in german but that's about it.

No, the reason is that people of all genders should feel addressed. There is a female version of programmer (and any other occupation) in German, but you can use the male form to address female programmers too. Some argued that some would not feel addressed correctly.

I have never seen a posting where gender was a requirement. You often saw something like this (rough translation):

"With equal qualifications, female candidates get preferential treatment."

Haven't seen that in a long time and I don't think it was mandatory, but some employers used such a clause.

Don't think I ever saw a gender specific job posting aside from movie roles, dancers, etc.

My current view is that I do not give pronouns as I assume an interlocutor will use a good-faith assumption, and I react appropriately if they are wrong. It helps that I have a traditionally-male forename. I do not conflate others' pronouns with their sexual orientations or preferences as they are rarely any of my business.

If I'm asked I am not uncomfortable to state my pronouns and I consider such a question to be perfectly cromulent.

If someone proffers pronouns I take great care in using them correctly, as I do the spelling of their name and how they express any title they may have. What's in a name? Respect is part of the answer.

My small employer has made no mention of the subject, and since my coworkers are ideologically diverse it would cause conflict if they did.

I think it's worth stating pronouns if a significant fraction of the people you work with have nontraditional ones. If it's just a tiny fraction, or none, it isn't worth the trouble. Like, if you're the only kosher person in a workplace it shouldn't make it necessary to partition food according to kosher law in the office kitchen, but it may be if the majority are keeping kosher.

A "significant fraction" is of course in the eye of the beholder. But maybe we can agree that it's somewhere between 1% and 50%.

I am from Georgia, (the country not state). My coworkers are generally LGBT neutral or friendly, never heard anything bad from anyone. I personally attend most pro-LGBT rallies. In our language, the Georgian language, there is just one pronoun for all genders, so we don't care. I personally consider enforcing others' choice of specific words in their speech a generally questionable practice.

> In our language, the Georgian language, there is just one pronoun for all genders, so we don't care.

That's a nice feature! As mentioned elsewhere, some languages (e.g. German) gender literally every noun, which makes it very complicated to adapt the language to these new conventions. English is comparatively lucky in that for the most part only pronouns are gendered. In English, gendered words for professions, like "actress," went out of fashion some time ago.

"Actress" was still in use at the 2020 Academy Awards: https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/09/entertainment/oscars-winners-...

Yes, there are no gender-specific occupation names in Georgian.

Some have put theirs in. I would if they asked or made mandatory. It's not something I personally care for or otherwise want to spend time and energy being bothered by it. I will however, if it means showing a small sign of support for those that do. As is, my signature is just my name. I don't understand the rebellious approach for something so trivial imo.

No and I wouldn't if they asked.

I don't think gender has any bearing on how one performs their job and to promote such a thing could do more harm than good.

When I see someone with their pronouns on twitter I usually don't engage with them. People who do this more often than not tend to make everything about gender politics where it would otherwise be irrelevant.

I have a number of acquaintances on social media who advertise their pronouns. They write, post visual art, engage in a wide range of discussions and sometimes involve themselves in gender or identity issues, but I haven't noticed a proclivity towards irrelevant politics. I wonder if the phenomenon you're seeing is one more prominent on Twitter?

This is a phenomenon exclusively on Twitter (and off late, the fediverse). I don't think I've seen it anywhere else.

Some NHS organisations have started using them. https://twitter.com/EddyLaurie1/status/1240346693931057153?s...

It's important for healthcare safety that people feels safe to discuss their gender and pronoun badges are a small sign that the wearer is a safe person to speak to.

I should think that in healthcare, of all places, your birth sex matters more than what your gender identity is -- for your own safety, even.

Yes, that's the point. When Bob goes for treatment and everyone assumes he's cis-male but he's actually trans-male they may offer needless screening. Bob needs to feel safe to be able to say "I've never had a prostate".

If I was on the fence for pronoun advertisement anywhere, I would definitely come off the fence for any healthcare or social work setting.

Do you think gender has a bearing on how one feels about oneself, and does one's self image have an impact on their performance?

I think there is a problem today when people put their sexuality as a cornerstone of their personality. I think its an important aspect of who you are but far from most important. This over emphasis on self identification can create negative feelings about the self if one were to not conform to whats expected.

Aren't you worried that your judgement of other people's personalities and what they think is important to them could be needlessly harmful?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but what gives you the right to tell other people what's important to them, given the vastly different set of life experiences everyone has?

Maybe if someone was throwing their life away to addiction, but an otherwise functioning and happy person doesn't seem like someone who wants to hear what you think of their life, and would seemingly prefer to just be called by the identifier they've chosen and then otherwise left alone by you.

Don't misunderstand. I have no problem using someone's preferred pronouns.

Gender and sexuality are orthogonal.

My company encourages everyone to create an "operating manual" that includes things like preferred pronouns. Not required at all, but helpful to avoid missteps.

Since the pronoun movement I've found myself avoiding pronouns altogether. For example instead of "team, welcome Jane. She is our new lead designer. She previously worked at acme corp" I would say "team, welcome our new lead designer Jane who previously worked at acme corp"

This 100% is the best solution that doesn’t offend anyone. English also has a number of gender natural pronouns that work fine. They/them/y’all/everyone have worked well for me.

The more I think about it, the more I think gendered pronouns are kind of archaic. Why do I need to mention someone’s gender in half of my sentences about them anyway? It seems pretty irrelevant, especially in a professional setting.

I am like your colleagues.

As humans we have been hardwired to recognize biological males from biological females for million of years. So when I speak to someone wether in person or online, I will use the pronouns associated with their biological gender, or masculine if I really don't know. That is the way I have always done so that I can focus as much as possible on what I have to say rather than how I say it. Content > From.

I really do not care about the sexual orientation, food preference or political opinion of the people I interact with in a professional environment, and I don't expect people to really care about mine.

There are quite a few things we're biologically hardwired to do that are not appropriate in the workplace that you presumably manage to rise above.

I am a white cis male. Normalising the statement of preferred pronouns is very important for people who's gender identity differs from their assigned sex at birth. I state my pronouns on both my social media and work emails.

Your statement of being "LGBT / neutral" seems strange to me, being neutral on whether other human beings should have the same rights I enjoy does not seem to be something I can be neutral on. I accept that myself and others with privilege must help create a more equal society for everyone, even in the relatively small changes such as stating our pronouns.

I would never want to be an "ally" (don't like the term, implicates antagonism without reflection). And this criticism seems also true for these suggested changes. Is that really good or helpful? Before enacting such changes, you should ask people if you have their support or you might get the opposite reaction, which at least partially happend on the topic of gender overall.

You group people by privilege, which is a judgement you cannot accurately make if you don't know a person very well. Some people judge others by large demographic group affiliation, but that doesn't sound like progress to me at all, on the contrary.

Being occupied by pronouns displays privilege far more accurately than skin color for example. I think that is a reasonable position.

Especially in a corporate environment, norms are created by employers and employees and they are in a constant flux. Traditionally we worked for gender becoming less relevant in a corporate setting.

If you want to change others, change yourself and be an example. Maybe people will follow, maybe they will not. While there might be sympathy for the cause, speech codes will hit limits rather quickly.

> Your statement of being "LGBT / neutral" seems strange to me

I think the / in that sentence is supposed to be read as "and", so:

> I am LGBT and neutral regarding the the use of pronouns.

I read it as:

> I am lesbian, gay, bi-, trans-, and neutral regarding the the use of pronouns.

which doesn't make any sense.

LGBT means any of the above. Like STEM.

I, perhaps, should not answer for someone else, but I read that as:

I am LGBT and I am neutral regarding the the use of pronouns.

When I was a kid, there was a period when my voice was changing that was very awkward. I would answer the phone, and people would hear my weird teenage voice and assume that I was my mom. After a while I got really self-conscious about it and started deliberately deepening my voice until it fully changed.

If somebody's appearance or voice doesn't match their pronouns, I think they're justified in wanting to put that information up front. If somebody's gender identity is not obvious, wouldn't you rather they just told you up front instead of making you guess and then correcting you?

By the same token, if only people with not obvious pronouns practice this, it singles them out. It doesn't hurt anybody. I don't think it should be mandatory, but I do think it should be celebrated and encouraged.

“Lady, I’ll call you when we have have Addams Family Values!”

Fairly uncommon in conservative US business. I'm torn on the matter between viewing it as corporate virtue signaling--which it absolutely is--while also considering the benefit of leveling the field for people who wish to avoid being misaddressed or awkwardly correcting others.

We barely use email here so no one thinks about signatures but many people have their pronouns in their Slack profiles.

Seems pretty helpful to me. We're a very multicultural work place so working out preferred pronouns just from peoples names can be tricky.

At a startup in TX we have been encouraged at various times to place them in email signatures and other communications. I’ve never felt particularly pressured to, it’s presented as a suggestion for being actively inclusive. It sends a signal, which perhaps is the point(that could be perceived positively as being welcoming or negatively as empty virtue signaling), but I wonder if it’s actually all that helpful. I can’t recall a situation where it wasn’t obvious what someone’s preference would be and were there a question in the moment I’d probably temporarily fall back to gender neutral they/their rather than interrupt the flow of conversation to look up their preference in an email signature. I’m not among those this is intended to help though and only have a few people in my extended friend group that are, so I’m open to hearing if this is actually important/helpful to those people.

I work with two small non-tech consultancies. For one, some of us are doing this (informally) with support from management. In emails signature, zoom calls, mural/miro screennames etc.

For another, we do this internally but not externally. We work with a tremendously, broad spectrum of people to generate social good. Some of these stakeholders would not receive this well, but at the same time actively invest time and money on key common areas (be it women's health to child mental health).

So in this organization, I think we would have to think throughly about the potential to alienate some stakeholders that sets us back on other social good activities.

I will never do this and I think it's incredibly unacceptable that companies are getting so personal and clawing into their employees in this way. My company encourages this and I will never do it.

Some application forms give a “Decline to state” option, and as far as I know that does not imply any latent bigotry. Now that I think of it, that’s going to be my literal answer if it ever becomes compulsory, as a Decline-To-Stater. Much of the Clojure community on Twitter does pronouns and I proceed with caution.

People can use the limited space to make whatever impression they like, is my thought... I maintain a one page resume after 20 years and know the value of space, and that’s strictly how I’d approach it.

Seems fine to me. As this has been encouraged but not mandated by your organisation it seems pretty benign. From what I understand about this sort of initiative it's about creating an environment where people feel comfortable sharing their preferred pronouns and helping, (e.g.) non cisgender people to feel like an outlier for doing so.

One datapoint: this recently changed, but I worked for years in a very multinational context, where people/names from my home country/language (America/English) were in the minority of people I emailed, called, interacted with, talked about, etc., and no one cultural/language group was very dominant in my work.

I found the trend to state pronouns (for those who opted-in) super helpful. It made explicit for me (and other colleagues) knowledge that is typically implicit. Of course, this is a different use-case for stating pronouns, but one that made them sticker (I think) in my work context than they otherwise would have been.

So, thumbs up for stating pronouns. If you don't state them, people who can will infer pronouns (and may be wrong), and people who can't (because of a lack of context) will feel awkward, have to ask someone else (time/energy), or get it wrong, which is shitty all around.

Personal stance: I've heard direct feedback from others that it makes them feel more welcome and normalizes an idea that is important to them, so I tend to include them in various places.

Previous employer: A group dedicated to inclusion & belonging recommended to HR, who clarified that including pronouns was certainly welcome but not required. Several people changed it.

Current employer: I just decided to include them in my signature as part of the "name" line. I did agree with another comment's hesitation because it's a sort of expression of a company's brand, but I know enough about my current employer and their stance on D&I that I'm not worried I'll upset anyone.

I wouldn't add pronouns by myself because it's not needed in my case. Haven't heard of an employer here who even mentions anything like this, but I wouldn't mind doing it when requested. For some people(even "binary" ones) this would be helpful because of names usually associated with the opposite sex. Especially in emails, where the name is often the only identifying information.

> they genuinely did not know that stating pronouns was a thing

That is...impressive. I don't think I've used an online community in recent years where this wasn't brought up as topic here and there.

What does this mean in practice? Add what?

Disclaimer: Not from US, not English speaking natively...

Email signatures would change from being

Bob Jenkins - Cloud Services Developer

Bob Jenkins (she/her) - Cloud Services Developer

This means that people writing about Bob don't assume that Bob is a particular gender, and helps them use the correct gender.

It's a small effort to increase politeness.

So "she/her" and not traditional "Mrs."? Because the latter does not fit many people these days?

Note edit: my native tongue Finnish doesn't even have gendered he/she. Quite an uncommon thing in languages.

I'm cis male. I recently decided to add pronouns to my slack and twitter bio.

I would prefer a world where pronouns are not gendered. I can't change that, but I can take the simple step of adding my pronouns. It costs me nothing, but may provide some comfort to others maligned by society.

I think your employer recommending it is fine. Wider adoption makes it more comfortable for trans/non-binary individuals to state their preferences. I'd object to an employer mandating it. My employer has a field in slack, but there is no pressure to fill it out.

Only if we have specific pronouns we want others to use. The biggest value it provides is saving that uncomfortable conversation where you correct/are corrected when first meeting someone.

No. I'm on th East coast in a solidly liberal area, and the only time I've ever seen pronouns listed outside of twitter was the staff name tags at a college graduation.

Im an employee at a company (400 employees US) has an article in internal homepage suggesting all employees do, executives do it, most employees dont though

I’ve seen this forced at larger companies and Universities. I’m neutral on the topic of stating pronouns — could somebody with more knowledge explain the difference between including pronouns and age/sex/race/religion/ethnicity?

From my understanding, usage of pronouns is about not making any assumptions and being inclusive. So I’m just not sure what or where the line is.

> I’m neutral on the topic of stating pronouns — could somebody with more knowledge explain the difference between including pronouns and age/sex/race/religion/ethnicity?

It's presumably quite a bit more common for someone to say "Oh, him? He's one of our developers" than it is to say "Oh, that Jew? That Jew is one of our developers." (If the latter is common, you've probably got more for HR to do than worry about pronouns.)

I guess that makes sense if it’s only for surface level addressing. I wasn’t sure if it’s supposed to be a deeper identity signal.

It's a simple "here's how I would like to be correctly addressed".

Being, say, stereotypically feminine in appearance with "he/him" pronouns or the use of "they/their" may offer clues to more unusual gender identities, but that's not intended to be the primary goal of listing the pronouns.

Unless they are specific to how we are likely to interact, sex, race, religion and ethnicity aren't relevant to how I address you, nor how you prefer to be addressed, I would assume.

It's viewed by some as a political matter, but in reality, the intent is to ensure that everyone feels comfortable sharing their pronouns without making people feel awkward. So by mentioning my own (he/him), I'm enabling a non-cis person to share theirs without them feeling odd about it, which boosts inclusivity.

That's the intent. I haven't done it yet (I probably should), but while I don't see neutrality towards stating pronouns in the following manner, I do see resistance from people around stating pronouns as being potentially motivated by bias. Inclusiveness boosts work output from everyone, and assuming peoples' pronouns is a rapid way to alienate a measurable population of workers to a degree that could impact their success.

Of the three east coast firms I've worked in the last six years, I've seen it recommended at two. I've seen it dissuaded at zero.

Edit: made the change on HN. I did it on Twitter some time ago apparently. It's also interesting watching the points swing on this. I suspect it's equivalent to corona masking in a way: common usage of pronouns reduces exposure to hatred by non-cis folk much the way usage of masks reduces exposure to covid-19 and complications by vulnerable folk.

Would a better aim be that any person can choose, or choose not, to proffer their pronouns, and feel equally comfortable either way?

> Would a better aim be that any person can choose, or choose not, to proffer their pronouns, and feel equally comfortable either way?

How do you mitigate the risk of minimal usage of pronouns by cis persons compared to non-cis folks? That's where the challenge lies - outsized non-cis usage of pronouns exposes them to hatred by those with bias, hence the desire for usage by cis folk.

I am not sure what risk you mean here and I struggle to see how a rational person can infer that I mean hatred when I introduce myself as "proactivesvcs", "Adam" or "Mr Piggott". I think that yes, everyone should feel that they can offer their pronouns, unsolicited, and I believe that we should encourage that this is an acceptable behaviour, since then eventually, it'll be something we don't even have to discuss. But inferring hatred strikes me as a very acute form of assuming bad-faith.

I treat strangers with the assumption that they are respectful until they earn an opinion to the contrary.

> I am not sure what risk you mean here and I struggle to see how a rational person can infer that I mean hatred when I introduce myself as "proactivesvcs", "Adam" or "Mr Piggott". I think that yes, everyone should feel that they can offer their pronouns, unsolicited, and I believe that we should encourage that this is an acceptable behaviour, since then eventually, it'll be something we don't even have to discuss. But inferring hatred strikes me as a very acute form of assuming bad-faith.

Ah, from what I'm reading, it doesn't seem that my message registered. Let me try conveying it another way.

Taylor Jones introduces herself with the pronouns she/they to a new group of friends. The new group of friends is unaccustomed to forward declaration of pronouns, and among them, a few in the group perceive Taylor as being different from themselves as a consequence of their unfamiliarity with pronoun declaration. Thus begins the Othering of Taylor. (Othering: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/other-as-a-ver...)

On the flip side, Taylor Jones introduces herself with the pronouns she/they to a group of friends who all then share their own pronouns for the sake of clarity. Because this practice is ingrained in the group already, it's less likely that some in the group would perceive Taylor as being "Other" to them.

Does this help?

I'm with you now. If we all open with pronouns, it speeds up the acceptance as a societal norm.

I am not going to argue with you because I'm not sure there is much of an argument, heh, but I have a strong suspicion that if I were to have offered pronouns in the last say, 30 introductions I made in person, most of the other parties would be baffled, ask why, then may think they have to coach their language around me. I hope we'd both agree it may carry a certain stigma with it. As it happens if I walked in the door of a customer the second time and she said "Ah, the ginger menace returns!" I would laugh and tell her that she better believe it, having taken no offence. Perhaps I'm making a false equivalence here to excuse my current viewpoint?

I mean, you've basically nailed the challenge:

> if I were to have offered pronouns in the last say, 30 introductions I made in person, most of the other parties would be baffled, ask why, then may think they have to coach their language around me.

This is exactly what we're trying to correct. And while you may (I'm assuming this is in reference to you) be able to weather the "ginger menace" remark, I'm not sure how well that translates elsewhere.

To wit: I once had a new friend call me a terrorist in a similar manner to the aforementioned "ginger menace" introduction after a few times of having met. That was the last time we spent time together.

I feel pretty odd using the phrase in quotes. Mind if I stop? I recognize it's probably not offensive to you, but I hesitate continuing to use it.

Apologies for being a bit unclear. I have red hair, which in British colloquy is known as "ginger". Some take offence to the term, others revel in it as we love our hair colour. I am firmly in the latter camp and my some of my friends adopted the nickname I once gave to myself of "ginger menace" :-)

My use of this was to show that I take no offence at someone using one of my attributes as part of my identity.

Fair, fair. A childhood friend of mine was repeatedly bullied for having red hair, so I've become particularly sensitive to it.

I don't think it's widespread. I think it's a good initiative because it includes everyone.

It's not compulsory, but it's encouraged and the tools have been updated to make it easy to opt-in.

It's a good thing for Allies to do, as it normalizes the use of preferred pronouns in society and supports those who may need it more than others.

at this point i find it helpful. i’ve started to see people as having two ways to refer to them, their name and their gender. i generally ask people, but that can force someone to “out” themselves.

i use they/them and have had the conversation with a lot of the more conservative people i love about use of gender and they mostly rebuke it with some semblance of the the “give a mouse a cookie” reasoning basically stating they don’t want to be bothered with learning about it.

i think including the information is a good idea, it makes it harder for someone to act like they don’t know your pronouns. it really is an identity issue and participation in it is harmless.

It’s not required but our internal profile system supports listing your pronouns and people are encouraged to list them. I think most people have set their pronouns too. This is at a well known financial services firm.

Companies are tripping over each other to satisfy the woke mob, and it's ridiculous. This is part of that, and my advice is to not participate -- don't give air to unwanted things, and don't legitimize them.

Or, if anyone has a sense of humor (very hard to find amongst the woke) encourage a large number of people to choose whimsical pronouns -- makes the silliness of it apparent.

Me/I/You/Your

“Eet”/“Xu”

Thee/thou/thy

I work in tech, not politics

"Tech isn't political" is itself a political stance. (And a hard to support one, IMO.)

I think it depends what part of "tech" you work in. I worked for a small electrical engineering firm building software to configure our devices. We were pretty apolitical overall, but I guess you could say we had a slight interest in legalized marijuana because our product was being used in the grow industry. Even then, no politics ever arised except for the occasional quip during a meeting.

The place I currently work does software in a trade industry (think electricians, plumbers, etc) and there is pretty much no politics either.

Outside of "big tech", I think the political portion decreases dramatically, at least for the employees. I'm sure owners have to focus on tax laws and such, but as an employee writing code, not so much.

Agreed, if one's stance is to prohibit discussion in furtherance of the status quo, that's as political as anything else. Kneeling during the national anthem or trying to stop people from kneeling, same/same.

There are sensible reasons why discussion of politics was looked down on in a professional setting. Didn't like that much because it can be interesting. But lately I see the benefit pretty clearly.

"No politics" is both a political stance, and what counts as politics is itself political. For example, some count "please call me 'they'" as political; others just common courtesy.

I always grant courtesy.

It's very easy to support because it isn't political unless you apply it in that domain.

> "Tech isn't political" is itself a political stance. (And a hard to support one, IMO.)

Funny how the only people who say this are the people who want to drag politics into everything. Tech is no more inherently political than, say, electrical engineering. That is to say, not at all without tortured logic that could be applied to almost anything.

You don't think the Free Software / Open Source movement many of us owe our careers to was a political one?

I do! Just like a movement to reform electrical engineering would be.

That does nothing to make the wider industry inherently political. It also is a much narrower sphere of politics, in that it is about reforming how software is made and thought of, which is relevant to the industry itself in a way that broad social issues are not.

An extravagant display of corporate house slave privilege. Most people, even those among the "golden billion," have much bigger problems than gender pronouns.

Think about waitresses or cashiers. Most could care less if you call them Pete or Sue, as long as they can get enough hours for the week, and the direct deposit is on-time.

We do that. Takes five seconds, helps everyone feel more included, so it's an easy win.

Never encountered this on the East coast, but if I did I'd have some fun with it.

If they didn't give a list of choices I'd say my pronouns were Who and Whom.

If they did provide a list of approved pronouns I'd complain that my preferred pronouns aren't on the list or pick whichever ones which would make people uncomfortable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com