Current Events > Tweet goes VIRAL saying man will be fired if he doesnt put pronouns in his email

(+) Yeah! (+)

StealThisSheen posted...

To be fair, it could give somebody pause for a number of reasons, such as if they're trans but not ready to out themselves, yet.

No legit company would require this. They can't. This is a made up scenario, Twitter dude is obviously full of it.

Those trans people wouldn't pause because they'd just put down what they currently prefer to be called.

Many companies request pronouns and they absolutely can require it.

Lillymon posted...

Hold on, if they're closeted aren't they 'lying' already? If you're a closeted trans woman and someone asks you your pronouns you say he/him because that's what being closeted means.

Yeah, they often are, though some people just choose to stay quiet. It can be very hurtful to have to keep your true self hidden, but some decide it's worth that pain to mitigate risk to themselves. Forcing them to display a pronoun (if they decide to remain closeted) makes that pain worse. It directly addresses it, forces them outright lie rather than just omit, and eliminates ambiguity (the wrong way) to others.

KI_Simpson posted...

the people throwing tantrums over pronouns are transphobes who resent it being something people are asked instead of assigned

Yeah those people are shit. You can spite them enough but making the option prominent and encouraged. Forcing them select an option hurts others more than it hurts them though.

RuneterranSnap posted...

Those trans people wouldn't pause because they'd just put down what they currently prefer to be called.

Many companies request pronouns and they absolutely can require it.

I'd say you don't know what you're talking about, but your account is an obvious troll alt.

EDIT: Sorry, you're not a troll alt. You just literally get banned that so often you have to keep making new accounts every few months.

Noname12 posted...

https://twitter.com/jakeshieldsajj/status/1675747126830329858?s=46&t=o6tIkkSBRz2o_KdlCGVq5A

Real thing that totally happened.

StealThisSheen posted...

I'd say you don't know what you're talking about, but your account is an obvious troll alt.

I do and it's not.

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Yeah, they often are, though some people just choose to stay quiet. It can be very hurtful to have to keep your true self hidden, but some decide it's worth that pain to mitigate risk to themselves. Forcing them to display a pronoun (if they decide to remain closeted) makes that pain worse. It directly addresses it, forces them outright lie rather than just omit, and eliminates ambiguity (the wrong way) to others.

You're definitely focusing on the wrong thing here. One more little lie on top of a whole life of lies is seriously not that big a deal. The more welcoming environment of everyone stating their pronouns is the much greater good and not worth sacrificing for this.

RuneterranSnap posted...

I do and it's not.

Yeah, my bad. You're not an alt. You just get banned all the time.

They cannot require you, by law. Any requirement would need to have a clear exemption policy. Requirement without exemption would be discrimination, and no legit business is going to mess with that.

It's why job applications leave stuff like race and sex as optional questions. They don't want to get anywhere near potential discrimination.

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Forcing people to put pronouns is misguided, sociopathic, and will primarily harm trans and non binary people.

The option should be there. Nobody should ever ever be compelled to. It would force trans or non binary people to out themselves.

^^ winner right here. never ever should someone have a gun to their head being forced to out themselves

StealThisSheen posted...

Yeah, my bad. You're not an alt. You just get banned all the time.

They cannot require you, by law. Any requirement would need to have a clear exemption policy. Requirement without exemption would be discrimination, and no legit business is going to mess with that.

Lol how would it be discrimination

RuneterranSnap posted...

Lol how would it be discrimination

You don't actually have a job, do you? I know you didn't when you were posting on B8. Not much has changed, eh?

StealThisSheen posted...

You don't actually have a job, do you? I know you didn't when you were posting on B8. Not much has changed, eh?

I do. Did then too.

RuneterranSnap posted...

Those trans people wouldn't pause because they'd just put down what they currently prefer to be called.

Many companies request pronouns and they absolutely can require it.

It's not legal in California:

During an employment interview, can I legally be asked to state my sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender expression?
No. An interviewer in California cannot legally ask a job applicant about their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression either directly or indirectly, such as by asking questions about the applicants body or spouse. An employer also cannot require you to disclose your gender on a job application or make your gender identity a condition of employment.

--https://www.aclusocal.org/en/ know-your-rights/california-lgbtq-employment-rights

and the UK it's illegal:

Helen Hughes (Employment Law Solicitor):
Although such a request may be done with the best intentions to address individuals with respect and courtesy in the way that they wish to be referred to employers must be wary about asking for information from employees that could impact the way they are treated. Despite the fact that they cant force people to disclose this kind of information, everyone should feel comfortable sharing preferred pronouns if they feel it important to do so.
Under the law of England and Wales there are nine protected characteristics: age, sex, race, disability, religion or belief, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, pregnancy or maternity and marriage or civil partnership. It is against the law to make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of any individual or group because of these characteristics and that treatment is prohibited in one of four main forms.
These are, direct discrimination (less favourable treatment because of a protected characteristic), indirect discrimination (the application of rules or arrangements which put those with a protected characteristic at a disadvantage), harassment (unwanted conduct on the basis of a protected characteristic that creates a hostile or degrading environment) and victimisation (unfair treatment of an individual because theyve complained, or may complain, of discrimination).
Forcing employees to reveal their pronoun preferences could leave employers open to discrimination claims, and employees feeling alienated.
Having an inclusive workplace culture is crucial. However, singling out one group of people is a dangerous game for employers. Being open, honest and, above all else, celebrating peoples differences will no doubt go a long way to improve culture, retention and breed a workforce that looks beyond age, gender, race or the like. There is simply no need to force employees to reveal any more information than they are comfortable with.
(https://www.shma.co.uk/our-thoughts/ can-employers-prefer-to-put-pronouns-in-email-signatures/)

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]



Lolol

Maybe people would care more about those "being forced" to share pronouns if that same group of people didn't largely go out of their way to misgender LGBTQ people. Jackasses that suddenly have no problem with singular they when queer people are being talked about.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/6/7/0/AAcv9ZAAEoD-.jpg

knightmarexx posted...

It's not legal in California:

During an employment interview, can I legally be asked to state my sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender expression?
No. An interviewer in California cannot legally ask a job applicant about their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression either directly or indirectly, such as by asking questions about the applicants body or spouse. An employer also cannot require you to disclose your gender on a job application or make your gender identity a condition of employment.

--https://www.aclusocal.org/en/ know-your-rights/california-lgbtq-employment-rights

and the UK it's illegal:

Helen Hughes (Employment Law Solicitor):
Although such a request may be done with the best intentions to address individuals with respect and courtesy in the way that they wish to be referred to employers must be wary about asking for information from employees that could impact the way they are treated. Despite the fact that they cant force people to disclose this kind of information, everyone should feel comfortable sharing preferred pronouns if they feel it important to do so.
Under the law of England and Wales there are nine protected characteristics: age, sex, race, disability, religion or belief, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, pregnancy or maternity and marriage or civil partnership. It is against the law to make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of any individual or group because of these characteristics and that treatment is prohibited in one of four main forms.
These are, direct discrimination (less favourable treatment because of a protected characteristic), indirect discrimination (the application of rules or arrangements which put those with a protected characteristic at a disadvantage), harassment (unwanted conduct on the basis of a protected characteristic that creates a hostile or degrading environment) and victimisation (unfair treatment of an individual because theyve complained, or may complain, of discrimination).
Forcing employees to reveal their pronoun preferences could leave employers open to discrimination claims, and employees feeling alienated.
Having an inclusive workplace culture is crucial. However, singling out one group of people is a dangerous game for employers. Being open, honest and, above all else, celebrating peoples differences will no doubt go a long way to improve culture, retention and breed a workforce that looks beyond age, gender, race or the like. There is simply no need to force employees to reveal any more information than they are comfortable with.
(https://www.shma.co.uk/our-thoughts/ can-employers-prefer-to-put-pronouns-in-email-signatures/)

Neither of those make it illegal lol. The part you quoted in California only refers to job applicants because it can create issue with hiring discrimination.

The one in UK doesn't make it illegal, though it does make it unwise because it opens the door for sexual harassment cases, but itself isn't discriminatory or illegal.

Redcaps don't have shit without their petty shit. And drama queening all over the place.

KI_Simpson posted...

Saying which pronouns to use doesn't out someone and will come up regardless of email headings, stop fucking missing the point on purpose and misrepresenting what I said.

It doesn't always come up. This forces it to come up, which is wrong.

loafy013 posted...

Whats the difference between somebody putting he/him in an email, and wanting coworkers to refer to them as him? It would only be outing them if the written and verbal didn't match.

There's a massive difference between actively signing every email with a lie and neglecting to correct coworkers that assume you're one gender or another.

RuneterranSnap posted...

Many companies request pronouns and they absolutely can require it.

But they absolutely should not, due to the immense potential harm.

Lillymon posted...

You're definitely focusing on the wrong thing here. One more little lie on top of a whole life of lies is seriously not that big a deal. The more welcoming environment of everyone stating their pronouns is the much greater good and not worth sacrificing for this.

It absolutely is a huge deal to a great many people. Anecdotally, I know many non binary people that very rarely correct others, even those that know their preferred pronouns but slip. Because bringing attention to it, even in such cases, makes the hurt worse.

I'm all for inclusion. It's important to try to create more welcoming work environments. I think having an option to display pronouns is a great idea. I think encouraging people to use this option is the right thing to do. That can gradually erode prejudices. It can make people more comfortable using other pronouns, and make it easier to do so instinctually. But forcing people to use it doesn't speed up that process. It hurts people now. It can delay people coming out, it can make people walk on eggshells to slow down the process of normalizing it.

Providing the option and encouraging it is good. Forcing it is bad. And the bigots will hate the first option just as much.

this is obviously just made up

DarkChozoGhost posted...

There's a massive difference between actively signing every email with a lie and neglecting to correct coworkers that assume you're one gender or another.

True. Which is why it's weird to get hung up when somebody "lives a lie" with the 10 emails they send a day compared to "living a lie" in the 100 conversations they have at work in person.

RuneterranSnap posted...

Neither of those make it illegal lol. The part you quoted in California only refers to job applicants because it can create issue with hiring discrimination.

Which is why they will never require you to state it later on, either. There's a reason jobs never ask you your sex, religion, orientation, and so on. Having that knowledge opens them up to the possibility of an employee claiming discrimination based on them knowing said information. Them strictly asking said information isn't illegal, but them knowing said information opens them up to so many potential legal issues that no legitimate job would purposely do such a thing. Hence why, "by law," they won't do it, because it leads to too many potential legal headaches, since it's much harder to prove you didn't discriminate once you know said information that could possibly lead to discrimination.

StealThisSheen posted...

Which is why they will never ask you later on, either. There's a reason jobs never ask you your sex, religion, orientation, and so on. Having that knowledge opens them up to the possibility of an employee claiming discrimination based on them knowing said information. Them strictly asking said information isn't illegal, but them knowing said information opens them up to so many potential legal issues that no legitimate job would purposely do such a thing. Hence why, "by law," they won't do it, because it leads to too many potential legal headaches.

Moving goalposts this bad and you're still wrong lol. Learn to admit mistakes.

RuneterranSnap posted...

Moving goalposts this bad and you're still wrong lol. Learn to admit mistakes.

Get a job. Or get banned again. That's cool, too.

StealThisSheen posted...

Get a job. Or get banned again. That's cool, too.

Have a job and I'm doing nothing to get banned. Stay salty.

RuneterranSnap posted...

Have a job and I'm doing nothing to get banned. Stay salty.

Keep crying about pronouns. It's doing you a lot of good, here.

RuneterranSnap posted...

Many companies request pronouns and they absolutely can require it.

Which ones, and please give direct examples that don't amount to a ghost fart like the tweet in this topic.

A company can request it, but they cannot make it compulsive.

StealThisSheen posted...

Keep crying about pronouns. It's doing you a lot of good, here.

When was I ever crying about them? I'm for pronouns and you jumped on me because I suggested a blatant bigot should be fired.

RuneterranSnap posted...

When was I ever crying about them? I'm for pronouns and you jumped on me because I suggested a blatant bigot should be fired.

Do we really need to reexplore your history and all the reasons you regularly get banned? You are clearly arguing in favor of requiring it because of your bigoted nature.

NatsuSama posted...

Which ones, and please give direct examples that don't amount to a ghost fart like the tweet in this topic.

Columbia does for its call center, so does Lithia and Consumer Cellular. None require it but they do request and support it, or did.

Feels like people are ignorant of the concept of code switching. Like I'm a cis gay male, and out in my personal life, but at work I prefer to keep it to myself except with coworkers I work closely with and I know are an ally. Even if a company claims to be progressive, individuals can still have their bigoted biases that can negatively affect your career.

If putting that I was gay in an email signature was heavily encouraged, I still would rather not, as it could just put a target on me by bigoted coworkers or clients.

StealThisSheen posted...

Do we really need to reexplore your history and all the reasons you regularly get banned? You are clearly arguing in favor of requiring it because of your bigoted nature.

I'm beginning to wonder if you even know why lol

RuneterranSnap posted...

Columbia does for its call center, so does Lithia and Consumer Cellular. None require it but they do request and support it, or did.

So, in other words, you have no proof of anybody legally requiring it?

Talk about moving goalposts.

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Yeah, they often are, though some people just choose to stay quiet. It can be very hurtful to have to keep your true self hidden, but some decide it's worth that pain to mitigate risk to themselves. Forcing them to display a pronoun (if they decide to remain closeted) makes that pain worse. It directly addresses it, forces them outright lie rather than just omit, and eliminates ambiguity (the wrong way) to others.

thissssssssssss

For those that have a meltdown over the prospect of doing this, I wonder how they feel about using Mr./Mrs./Ms. in their emails. Because, you know, that could out them.

StealThisSheen posted...

So, in other words, you have no proof of anybody legally requiring it?

Talk about moving goalposts.

I never said I had proof or even evidence of companies requiring it. I said they legally could if they chose. You've shown why it would be a bad idea, but have not shown anything saying they can't do it.

RuneterranSnap posted...

I never said I had proof or even evidence of companies requiring it. I said they legally could if they chose. You've shown why it would be a bad idea, but have not shown anything saying they can't do it.

They can't do it because they would get (rightfully) sued. That's why nobody does it. Do you think corporations decided not to do so out of the goodness of their heart or anything? Of course not. They don't do it because they'd get in legal trouble for doing so.

Raikuro posted...

Feels like people are ignorant of the concept of code switching. Like I'm a cis gay male, and out in my personal life, but at work I prefer to keep it to myself except with coworkers I work closely with and I know are an ally. Even if a company claims to be progressive, individuals can still have their bigoted biases that can negatively affect your career.

If putting that I was gay in an email signature was heavily encouraged, I still would rather not, as it could just put a target on me by bigoted coworkers or clients.

Except your sexual orientation (most of the time) is unrelated to your job. In this case, this is clarification on addressing coworkers. we already use pronouns

RuneterranSnap posted...

Columbia does for its call center, so does Lithia and Consumer Cellular. None require it but they do request and support it, or did.

Let me clarify again. Examples that you can actually show that isn't in anyway resembling that Tweet. Something actually verifiable.

Something that can't be a dubious claim that assumes one should take your word (which means little to nothing) for it

Basically, what you're doing is splitting hairs by going "There is no singular law that says they can't." However, there are a number of discrimination laws that they'd be opening themselves to by doing so.

You're trying to be clever for bigoted reasons.

NatsuSama posted...

Which ones, and please give direct examples that don't amount to a ghost fart like the tweet in this topic.

My employer. We only have about 60 employees though.

StealThisSheen posted...

They can't do it because they would get (rightfully) sued. That's why nobody does it. Do you think corporations decided not to do so out of the goodness of their heart or anything? Of course not. They don't do it because they'd get in legal trouble for doing so.

Except they can't get sued for it, at least not successfully. They can get sued for other things and the requirement could be used against them, but thats not what you said.

You said they cannot require it. The fact remains they can.

So are you going to attack me again, provide actual evidence supporting what you said, or admit you were among like an adult?

RuneterranSnap posted...

Except they can't get sued for it, at least not successfully.

This is false. You cannot require somebody compulsively, formally or informally, to provide personal information regarding any kind of protected class. You can request it, or you can provide exemptions, but you cannot make it a strict requirement.

If you make it a requirement, you must provide exemption guidelines.

Why are people so up in arms over the whole pronouns thing? It just seems like the dumbest thing to freak out over.

Everyone has pronouns and it is upsetting when you are called by the wrong one.

BeantownHero posted...

Except your sexual orientation (most of the time) is unrelated to your job. In this case, this is clarification on addressing coworkers. we already use pronouns

Trans people can still code switch though, which was my point. Like if someone is non binary, they may prefer they/them in their personal life but more tolerant of cis pronouns at work. They may rather have the people they work directly with regularly use preferred pronouns but not as strict with clients to require it in every email.

Being forced to identify as "TQ+" isn't that different from being forced to identify as "LGB".

NatsuSama posted...

Let me clarify again. Examples that you can actually show that isn't in anyway resembling that Tweet. Something actually verifiable.

Something that can't be a dubious claim that assumes one should take your word (which means little to nothing) for it

There's nothing dubious about the idea that companies request or support the use of pronouns. It's extremely commonplace. I gave you examples from places I've worked, if you want actual evidence you can find it yourself, I'm not wasting time on that.

StealThisSheen posted...

You're trying to be clever for bigoted reasons.

What bigoted reason? Like you seem to think I have a history of transphobia and that's nowhere near the truth, I regularly am an ally. I believe that this would not cause trans people issue, and if I'm wrong I'd accept that and change my stance.

What I'm doing here is engaging you more than you actually deserve given how quickly you jumped to attack me for what was honestly a pretty innocuous post.

creativerealms posted...

Why are people so up in arms over the whole pronouns thing? It just seems like the dumbest thing to freak out over.

Everyone has pronouns and it is upsetting when you are called by the wrong one.

We used to have a society where someone would smack you if you didn't call them "sir" or "ma'am". And now people are pining for those same "good ol days" just because refusing to call someone by their name is considered offensive.

hey rune how many times have you been banned? im curious.

Ferroseed posted...

hey rune how many times have you been banned? im curious.

Idk, too many. Some deserved, some not. I've been around this site too long overall, 23 years, and I've said a lot of stupid shit.

like im trying to understand. i know you got banned once for repeatedly calling a certain group of people groomers which i probably dont need to go into more detail about, but im curious how many other times