Adding Pronouns In Communication: what it is and why I don't do it

    

Written for LinkedIn: view the original here.

 The trend of adding preferred pronouns to one’s name in communications seems to be growing. At the moment, it hasn’t exploded, so you may well not know what on earth I’m talking about. But don’t be surprised if you come across it eventually. Perhaps a LinkedIn connection will have done it, or you’ll spot it in an email signature. Mine would be Aidan Kiely (he/his/him).

Why are people doing this?

It is becoming particularly well adopted by those who are heavily involved in the field of Diversity and Inclusion (D&I), perhaps as much in the spirit of leading by example as personal belief in its importance.

Why, you might ask? Principally because of shifting perspectives when it comes to gender. Gender identity is now increasingly considered in a more flexible manner.

I believe this is because of a shift in using labels to neatly categorise people, to an acceptance of labels that allow a person to more authentically express their sense of self. So, gender fluidity, non-binary and the use of their/theirs as neutral pronouns for a single individual have entered the contemporary lexicon of gender identity.

Thus, it is no longer considered that one can take for granted a person’s gender by knowing their name, looking at them or by assuming that if their sex is male/female, this is how they will self-define their gender identity too.

Use of one’s preferred pronouns in communication saves others the potential awkwardness of getting this wrong, for example referring to someone as “she” when “they” is preferred, perhaps because they consider themselves genderfluid or non-binary.

Why I don’t add my pronouns

This is very much an individual’s decision and different preferences deserve equal respect. Why not comment and tell me why you have chosen to do it?

I have chosen not to do it, first because as a cisgender person (that means my gender identity matches the sex I was assigned at birth), it simply doesn’t feel necessary to clarify that I am male.

If people are getting it right based on the information they already have, why clarify something that doesn’t need clarifying?

Second, I don’t think a cisgender majority apparently leading by example helps. It just makes people confused and less likely to take any notice.

It feels about as useful as a bunch of straight people loudly proclaiming their heterosexuality for making LGBT colleagues feel more included. This is not an issue that affects me, so why make a move that does nothing more than stress that point for the sake of it.

Finally, it’s just too politically correct for me. D&I already suffers from a reputation for excessive political correctness and fusspottery in its critics’ eyes – however unfair; we do need to win those critics over!

Most of the time, seeing a person’s personal pronouns will do nothing more than assure you that you hadn’t got it wrong in your initial judgement about who they are and how they define themselves.

I don’t feel that a more inclusive culture is one where we have to employ more sophisticated devices to be more and more explicit about who we are so people don’t get it wrong. I’d much sooner we had the confidence in our organisational cultures to know that, when people make mistakes, it’s not done so with any bad intentions and people will correct and learn from each other in a spirit of genuine respect.

The simple goal of D&I should be valuing and learning from each other more whilst enjoying the benefits of so doing. To make that work, I think we have to understand that we can’t be unduly sensitive and precious, but in return can expect our dignity, wellbeing and identity to be upheld and valued.

Adding my pronouns would, for me, do nothing other than communicate how I expect other people to be treated, and frankly I’d far rather that this be obvious in how I work day in, day out with the people I encounter.