If I went into Halifax, I’m not sure at any point I’d need to say him/her/they to that person?
“Thanks for fixing that on my account, Gemma”
Not
“Thanks for fixing that on my account, her”
The only time I can think it would be helpful is if I was referring to that person I suppose. “She just helped me vs they just helped me” ?
Just because someone has long hair and feminine features doesn’t strictly mean they identify as female or even use she/her pronouns so I think it does.
Even if it didn’t its still one of those things that harms nobody but provided some benefit to the person who chooses to do it
I suppose I’m coming at it from the point of view that I wouldn’t expect any other protected characteristics to be printed on my name badge, and that printing that kind of thing of thing on name badges might actually make it harder for people to change and/or be who they want to be?
Hence why I wondered if there was published evidence about this.
I don’t think anyone is being forced to have their pronouns printed on their badge. Same way people can wear a disability badge/lanyard if they want to, or wear religious items. Not sure why we couldn’t allow people an extra, optional thing to express themselves when it’s not taking anything away from anyone
We have optional pronouns here at Monzo, though don’t wear badges and we refrain from saying the word “guys”, and refer to folks instead 
That is what some of the comments where saying. Why are the pronouns needed if their name is there and most people will referr to a name, if they refer to someone at all?
Anyway, it doesnt hurt anyone by having optional pronouns so dont see the issue with it.
That’s the point though. It’s about not assuming the obvious. And trans people say it normalises things for them when cisgendered people display their pronouns.
Edit: As has already been highlighted 
It’s not always about showing what your pronouns are, sometimes it’s about showing others than you’re acutely aware of it and in some way support the Trans community/those who have pronouns that are not so obvious.
If someone who has pronouns sees a company putting them on name badges, they might feel comfortable with giving their own pronouns. Flip side of that is that those staff members with different pronouns to the obvious will feel comfortable.
Regardless of your opinion on pronouns, there is no loser in this kind of situation so I don’t see where the fuss is.
And it’s not even compulsory. If someone doesn’t want to wear their pronouns they don’t have to. I don’t see how this policy could possibly harm anyone.
So I think this is the bit that I don’t quite buy. Not completely, anyway, which is why I wondered how much the current trend for pronouns in the workplace had been studied.
This quote is talking about mandating the use of pronouns, which no one here is suggesting, but I think you end up with a similar result if everyone-but-you in the office is displaying them.
Whilst many organisations mandate the sharing of pronouns on email footers with the best intentions towards transgender and non-binary communities, it’s important to acknowledge that this initiative can have some unintended negative consequences at two key points.
Firstly, for those who choose to conceal their gender identity at work, being asked to declare their pronouns can feel like a lose-lose situation: they must either out themselves in a way that may not feel comfortable or safe, or lie and risk being mis-gendered on a regular basis. For those who have not disclosed their gender identity to others, stating the wrong pronouns on an email footer can serve as a persistent reminder of the disparity between how they identify and how others perceive them. Those within the transgender and non-binary community who do conceal their identity may therefore feel further excluded by this move towards public sharing of pronouns.
Secondly, research shows that when aspects of our identity are made salient, stereotypes are more readily activated. The act of reminding somebody, or indeed simply reminding yourself, of your gender can increase the likelihood that stereotypes will be drawn upon in subsequent interactions. For example, we know that women are less likely to be offered a job if they include their gender on their CV. For this reason, the practice of including gender on a CV is now considered to be outdated. Sharing pronouns on email footers not only opens the door for discrimination and exclusion based on gender, but can also lead to self-stereotyping which can impact self-confidence and performance.
Fwiw, I found nothing on google scholar and web searches are mostly full of opinion pieces.
Wish we had name badges for bigotry too.
Bob
racist
Lucy
transphobe who reads the Daily Mail
Imogen
one of those people who puts their dog’s shit in a plastic bag and then hangs it on a tree for someone else to take away
Would save a lot of time.
DSespite me saying not no one is harmed earlier, I do think more research into it needs to be done. Personally, I haven’t included my pronouns in emails etc and I wouldn’t do if asked (although I’m at uni, it’s a bit different to a workplace). I have my reasons for it but I also don’t care about those who choose to. I think forcing people to do it is wrong, but you might end up with issues if everyone but one person does it.
I think people who do it do deliberately as a way to go against transgender people are wrong though.
Yes. It helps normalise the practice, which means the people who sign “(they / their them)” in particular don’t feel like ‘odd-one-out’ weirdos for having their pronouns in their signature.
It also acknowledges that how someone presents may differ from how they identify, and that you can’t “tell what people are” just by looking at them.
So far I don’t know of anywhere mandating it, and I’d be surprised if that became the norm.
I understand where your argument is coming from but I’m afraid I just don’t see any harm in allowing pronouns to be prominently displayed at work. If you don’t want to, by all means don’t.
The normalisation of it really is key. Now I don’t pretend to be an expert, nor am I trans or in any way questioning of the gender I was born into, but I’m keen to liken it to the use of the word “partner”. It’s fairly gender/sexuality neutral but for years it was seem to define a small group of either gay people or “Guardian readers trying to sound modern”.
Now it’s just a normal word used by most that I know, and at work, and is a way of being quite inclusive and nobody thinks twice about it or judges someone for using it. Equally if a male colleague talks of his wife I’m not offended so you can choose not to use partner.
It’s not a perfect analogy I know but it’s the best I could bring to mind.
Btw I’m also very much of the opinion the militantly expecting the world to instantly understand pronouns (particularly ones that fall outside of the ones we are used to - he/she/them) won’t work. Getting angry because someone uses the wrong pronouns I do not believe wins arguments, but I think the normalisation of it will assist long term.
Like I said, I can’t think of how anyone loses in this.
It’s not new, no. I had to do Pronoun training when I worked for Lloyds, Yes, that’s a thing. I didn’t work in a branch
I mean it’s a name badge at end of day with some pronouns on, case closed. If people don’t like it there free to move along to whichever cave they so with to live in.
Many staff wear sunflower lanyards and badges, and it became really important for staff to have these during the pandemic.
One of the things I don’t get is why people think it’s all about the person wearing the badge or giving their pronoun. It’s not. It’s an indicator to say your aware of pronouns. It can be a way of people who may be nonconforming to know it’s safe or simply that you understand.
Eurgh. I definitely shouldn’t have started reading the comments on twitter. These people 
Missing a ‘not’?
Output error… More cheese required 
Thanks for spotting my obvious and now edited mistake
No worries, we’ve all been there (I know I have) 