Originally Posted by Qtx (Post 36132056)

Putting pronouns in your signature isn't being 'decent' to anyone. Not sure who you think you are fooling with that one, maybe yourself.

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36131983)

Why does any of this matter?

After all, names are just noises we use to identify each other.

My OH is Polish and although she’s been here 15+ years and speaks English better than many British people I’ve met she still hasn’t got a complete grasp on British customs, nuances etc.

For example she finds it unusual that someone called William may want to be referred to as Bill. It doesn’t bother her in any way, just that they seem like unconnected names to her.

So if someone wants to use an apparently unconnected name or pronoun, WGAS?

On my email signature at work I have “(he/him)” after my name. Virtue signalling? Do me a favour. I do it so anyone I correspond with (in my workplace or externally) who feels unsure about revealing their chosen pronoun (hopefully) will feel a little more open and relaxed whilst dealing with me.

Is there a problem with this?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36132072)

Not really, but why don't you simply use 'Mr'?

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36132073)

Because that would make me sound too far up my own @rse.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36131988)

As our dear friend Graham used to love saying in his posts on here, when discussing personal freedom: your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

Of course there’s nothing wrong with someone putting pronouns on their emails if that’s what they want to do.

OTOH, compelling me to use manufactured language in order to comply with an ideology to which I do not subscribe - that is not OK. Nor is requiring my acquiescence to a world view that is, frankly, alien to human society throughout history.

The real problem here is not what someone puts in their email signature, it is that the loudest campaigners in this area are shrilly insisting that this issue defines their humanity and demanding others therefore acquiesce. Leaving aside the shaky philosophical basis for defining your entire humanity on the basis of whether you feel you’re a man, a woman, or something else, the simple fact is, compelled speech is unlawful. What these campaigners are demanding is intolerable in an open, liberal and democratic society.

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36132084)

Where did I say I do it because I think “need to”?

I do it because I want to. Big difference.

And no, the “showing ignorance” comment was because he was showing ignorance with his comments.

Originally Posted by Qtx (Post 36132068)

The pronouns stuff makes me sick too! ;)

My point was a small marginalised group can make a lot of fuss and then everyone is jumping through hoops for them, well above and beyond what is acceptable.

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 36132086)

I think it's more about trying to understand the reasoning as to why etc. As for the 'need to' it was why do you need to, it's not like your name is Sam, Charlie or some other unisex name.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36132087)

That statement reminds me of almost exactly the same arguments being used against the decriminalisation of homosexuality and when marriage equality was first proposed…

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36132087)

That statement reminds me of almost exactly the same arguments being used against the decriminalisation of homosexuality and when marriage equality was first proposed…

Originally Posted by Qtx (Post 36132097)

People may have had positive or negative views on same sex marriage but the difference is no one changed their own actions based on that. It didn't lead to twits putting pronouns in their social media profiles or shops and police cars virtue signalling with rainbows and similar stuff which is everywhere these days.

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36132103)

I think Hugh was referring to the principle behind it…

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36132103)

I think Hugh was referring to the principle behind it…

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36132103)

I think Hugh was referring to the principle behind it…