See, I'd like to discuss this because I think you're simultaneously right but also not really taking it in the best faith. Full disclosure: I put my pronouns (he/him) in my social media profiles and in my work email signature. I do this for a number of reasons. The work email signature is, to be frank, me bowing to corporate culture more…
See, I'd like to discuss this because I think you're simultaneously right but also not really taking it in the best faith. Full disclosure: I put my pronouns (he/him) in my social media profiles and in my work email signature. I do this for a number of reasons. The work email signature is, to be frank, me bowing to corporate culture more than anything else. Why they're in my social media profiles, however, is, well, three reasons:
1) To signal where I lie ideologically - similar to someone putting #FBPE or #Antivax or whatever in their profile.
2) To signal my virtue - so people think I'm a good person and I receive an imaginary pat on the head; like why someone might wear a poppy or one of these neat Marie Curie flowers.
3) To provide cover to trans and nonbinary people - to help make it usual to freely offer one's pronouns. This is similar to why straight people might use 'partner' instead of 'boyfriend' or 'girlfriend' - to make it stand out less when someone with a same sex partner isn't comfortable in outing themselves.
I don't think this is without caveats (one trans friend pointed out having to offer their pronouns at work would basically be forcing them to out themselves in what they feel is a hostile environment). But can you at least sympathise with the third point?
It's really good for you to be transparent in this way. I think there is a lot of motte and bailey switching between the propositions out there (or indeed just presenting it as 'just what you do', ie points 1+2 but in a way that implies dissent is sketchy)
Point 3 is clearly the most sympathetic to liberal-minded people - but I think it's to some extent an empirical question whether it's *actually* an effective way to do it, versus a bit of a rationalisation (with 1+2 as underlying motivation). And I've seen dissents both from trans-affirming / trans people and gendercrits on its merits in this respect; putting aside the open objections to the politics of it (many essays elsewhere). In some organisations it's going to be forcing dissenters to 'out' themselves, potentially to hostility (depending on the extent of formal or informal compulsion), so you can flip the argument the other way too, depending on your priors of course.
Re: your example with "partner" - I'm sceptical (!) That the growth in this usage relates to that motivation (even unconsciously) so much as i) more long-term hetero couples remaining unmarried, 'bf/gf' not sounding very grown up and ii) general preference for gender-neutral terms across the board, they sound more 'modern'.
Cf. liberal norms on race/cultural identity - we accept that it's an issue of variable importance to different people, it's considered polite to be non-dismissive when someone *does* bring it up but not to be intrusive if they don't, some people are obviously 'read' but others are ambiguous, it's impolite to make assumptions based on your own preconceptions, if you're unsure allowing maximal leeway is the way to go. And actively drawing attention to / strengthening divisions along those lines (except where wholly relevant) is generally to be uncomfortable or worse to all involved including the marginalised party.
All fair points, and I tend to agree with you re the partner thing - I was just grasping for an analogue and it's the best I could find at short notice!
See, I'd like to discuss this because I think you're simultaneously right but also not really taking it in the best faith. Full disclosure: I put my pronouns (he/him) in my social media profiles and in my work email signature. I do this for a number of reasons. The work email signature is, to be frank, me bowing to corporate culture more than anything else. Why they're in my social media profiles, however, is, well, three reasons:
1) To signal where I lie ideologically - similar to someone putting #FBPE or #Antivax or whatever in their profile.
2) To signal my virtue - so people think I'm a good person and I receive an imaginary pat on the head; like why someone might wear a poppy or one of these neat Marie Curie flowers.
3) To provide cover to trans and nonbinary people - to help make it usual to freely offer one's pronouns. This is similar to why straight people might use 'partner' instead of 'boyfriend' or 'girlfriend' - to make it stand out less when someone with a same sex partner isn't comfortable in outing themselves.
I don't think this is without caveats (one trans friend pointed out having to offer their pronouns at work would basically be forcing them to out themselves in what they feel is a hostile environment). But can you at least sympathise with the third point?
It's really good for you to be transparent in this way. I think there is a lot of motte and bailey switching between the propositions out there (or indeed just presenting it as 'just what you do', ie points 1+2 but in a way that implies dissent is sketchy)
Point 3 is clearly the most sympathetic to liberal-minded people - but I think it's to some extent an empirical question whether it's *actually* an effective way to do it, versus a bit of a rationalisation (with 1+2 as underlying motivation). And I've seen dissents both from trans-affirming / trans people and gendercrits on its merits in this respect; putting aside the open objections to the politics of it (many essays elsewhere). In some organisations it's going to be forcing dissenters to 'out' themselves, potentially to hostility (depending on the extent of formal or informal compulsion), so you can flip the argument the other way too, depending on your priors of course.
Re: your example with "partner" - I'm sceptical (!) That the growth in this usage relates to that motivation (even unconsciously) so much as i) more long-term hetero couples remaining unmarried, 'bf/gf' not sounding very grown up and ii) general preference for gender-neutral terms across the board, they sound more 'modern'.
Cf. liberal norms on race/cultural identity - we accept that it's an issue of variable importance to different people, it's considered polite to be non-dismissive when someone *does* bring it up but not to be intrusive if they don't, some people are obviously 'read' but others are ambiguous, it's impolite to make assumptions based on your own preconceptions, if you're unsure allowing maximal leeway is the way to go. And actively drawing attention to / strengthening divisions along those lines (except where wholly relevant) is generally to be uncomfortable or worse to all involved including the marginalised party.
All fair points, and I tend to agree with you re the partner thing - I was just grasping for an analogue and it's the best I could find at short notice!