Pronouns in Signature

[Matthew Best]

This is what I mean about the feelings of those concerned or uncomfortable with this idea counting for absolute zero, which I think contributes to the digging in of heels and inhibits productive discussion.

But I'm not saying that everybody should do it, or that the feelings of those who feel they don't want to should count for nothing. I perhaps haven't read as closely as I could have, but I don't recall anybody saying that they were upset or angry about anyone else doing it.

If you can point to a person who is going to be upset or annoyed at the fact that I have put pronouns into my email signature I may have to think again.

 

[attempt5001]

But I'm not saying that everybody should do it, or that the feelings of those who feel they don't want to should count for nothing. I perhaps haven't read as closely as I could have, but I don't recall anybody saying that they were upset or angry about anyone else doing it.

If you can point to a person who is going to be upset or annoyed at the fact that I have put pronouns into my email signature I may have to think again.

I was expressing earlier in the thread how the signatures, and the general idea that defining pronouns as a starting point for interactions (whether written or in person) makes me uncomfortable, as I think it does for many. I don't think that necessarily means we shouldn't, or that I wouldn't. As has been pointed out, all social change is uncomfortable, even when it's for the better. But I think it's important to acknowledge that it comes with a sense of loss, and cost for some and it is at least possible, that the cost outweighs the benefit.

That said, I can certainly understand why many would, even after considering both sides, make the same decision as you.

 

[arthwollipot]

Hi Arth. I understand why "preferred" isn't preferred. Do you understand my earlier explanation of a more fundamental difference between preferences of what a pronoun (or gender) denote?

Of course, but there is a risk of you using the word in a way that other people do not, and thereby causing misunderstandings. As long as we're all clear on what we mean, we shouldn't run into trouble.

 

[arthwollipot]

Thanks Bruto. I understand your point, but this feels like making etiquette more cumbersome. It feels like an episode of star trek where humans are interacting with an alien species and trying desperately not to step on toes and start an intergalactic incident. (I'm exaggerating of course, but I hope you understand what I mean.)

Actually not such a bad analogy.

 

[arthwollipot]

I think a far better proposal would be to have everyone use gender-neutral pronouns. Maybe a new one?

Bespoke alt pronouns have been suggested from time to time, and they have never caught on with any but a vanishingly small number of people. They/them/their is generally acceptable in the vast majority of situations.

 

[mgidm86]

Be hard to see on what grounds? In the UK it’s not discriminatory as UK employment law defines it, and given the weaker employment anti-discrimination laws in the USA I doubt it would be discriminatory in the USA. It’s also not an onerous burden so can’t see any push back based on that.

<shrug> There's a lawyer for everything though. Or not. Too tired to think. I guess I don't really care.

 

[attempt5001]

Of course, but there is a risk of you using the word in a way that other people do not, and thereby causing misunderstandings. As long as we're all clear on what we mean, we shouldn't run into trouble.

Cool. And I think we are running into exactly this with "man" and "woman", where many (most I think) use it to mean "adult male" and "adult female", especially as gender roles and stereotypes have been challenged and reduced over the last generation or two.

 

[arthwollipot]

Cool. And I think we are running into exactly this with "man" and "woman", where many (most I think) use it to mean "adult male" and "adult female", especially as gender roles and stereotypes have been challenged and reduced over the last generation or two.

Yes, and in partial answer to your PM (which I did see but didn't have the intellectual energy to reply to at the time) the meanings of those words may change over time. I doubt that new words will emerge to replace them, for much the same reasons that bespoke pronouns haven't replaced traditional ones.

And while we're there, I will mention that the best practice terms are trans man and trans woman, rather than transman and transwoman. I don't fully understand the reasoning behind this, though it does seem more appropriate to me.

 

[attempt5001]

Glad you saw the PM and no problem on not having the time or energy to respond. You're active enough here already as it is. Thanks for the note on best practice.

I really think it's been a hard change of direction for those that find social change the most difficult. At least a full generation of learning not to say "being a man means ..." because it's not appropriate to rigidly define gender in that way has quite quickly shifted to accepting "I am a trans man or trans woman because ...". So as a society we have eliminated the criteria by which gender can be assessed, but are now emphasizing the importance and validity of self-assessment. So far as it only affects individuals, I think most people (here at least) agree that's fine, but when it affects societal norms, permissions, practices more generally, I don't think it's surprising that this causes challenges.

On a somewhat (though not directly) related topic. I found this article about social munchausen syndrome (falsely identifying which a culture, race, event etc.) very interesting.

https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...lo-dolezal-social-munchausen-syndrome/618289/