Preferred Pronouns

October 20, 2023

Includovate

By Mariette Correa

The first time I came across preferred pronouns in person was when I was working with LGBTQ groups on issues related to HIV/AIDS. Before that, novels and style manuals had been my only exposure to such a concept, being defined as “the pronoun that an individual would like others to use when talking to or about that individual.”

Getting my head around the concept took some time. After all, there were “natural” pronouns for individuals, weren’t there? One made one’s best guess at an individual’s biological gender and then referred to that individual as “he” or “she.” It was only through long conversations with transgender activists that I came to understand how much social and cultural baggage is contained in the “best guess” that we make before putting a person into one slot or the other — which, of course, ignores all other possibilities. What about non-binary and non-heteronormative groups? Is not our pigeonholing disrespectful to how individuals may see themselves, in that it may violate their self-identity? Do we not frequently use man, he, and mankind as false generics, an error pointed out in Casey Miller and Kate Swift’s classic, The Handbook of Nonsexist Writing, first published in 1980?

There was intellectual acceptance of the concept on my part after I had thought about it a bit, and discussed with some friends (though it is only recently that it has begun to gain acceptance in mainstream culture), and I even tried to incorporate non-gendered third pronouns in my writing, substituting they for he or she when the gender of the person was irrelevant (as it usually is in professional settings). Even with that acceptance, it took some time and effort getting past the grammatical dissonance — subject not agreeing with object, as in, “They is very good at their work.” — something that is still not accepted as ‘correct’ usage by most grammarians. (The guru of free software, Richard Stallman, talks about this dissonance, and suggests substituting “per” — derived from person — instead of “they” as a third-person genderless pronoun, resulting in “Per is very good at per’s work.” It was quite delightful to read Stallman’s references to Marge Piercy’s Woman on the Edge of Time, the novel in which I first came across gender-neutral third-person pronouns in the mid-1980s.)

Grammatical quibbles aside, it was not long before I realised how little of this approach had seeped into my “real” life. In 2017, my son, who was a graduate student at a university in the US, started using “they” as a singular third-person pronoun. Every time he did it, my mind would quiver in discomfort at the grammatical disagreement. He said that the same thing had happened with him initially, and that it is quite easy to get past the problem with some practice. Well, that hasn’t quite happened with me yet (probably due to uncooperative family and friends who refuse to play along, citing one excuse or the other), but I hope to get there. My son made quite a number of irrefutable (to me, at least) arguments in favour of this alternative, and I found myself convinced and trying to do it more and more often — uncooperative family and friends be damned! I also had to get my head around the fact that, if one wants to be truly non-binary in speech and thought, there are not three but almost an infinitude of alternatives to consider.

Recently, after joining Includovate, I discovered that there is one more hurdle yet to cross. It seemed to be mandatory to declare a “preferred” personal pronoun, which to me appeared to be carrying woke cultural hectoring a tad too far. It also seemed to me to be tantamount to a forcible “coming out of the closet” for many. For some, a non-binary or non-heteronormative gender identity may be criminalised. Strong social taboos may operate which make it unwise to confess to a non-binary, non-heteronormative identity. And other people may quite simply not care one way or the other — one is free to address or refer to someone else however they want, as long as it is not deliberately disrespectful. The “default” option of “none” (as offered in many institutions) appeared not to be on offer at Includovate. You had to have a preferred pronoun.

When I voiced my discomfort at the seemingly unavoidable nature of stating one’s preferred pronouns, the CEO of the organisation promptly asked me to present my case before the rest of the staff. Further research showed me that many online apps and platforms make it mandatory to declare a preferred pronoun, which is automatically displayed along with the name of the person. It wasn’t necessarily the organisation which was making it compulsory — rather, it was some of the apps and platforms that Includovate commonly uses that were doing it automatically. But the organisation also had sound reasons for the procedure, one of them being the difficulty in accurately identifying gender identities from names alone. Since we at Includovate hail from different countries and cultures, many names can seem unfamiliar and we are likely to mistake people’s gender identities as a result. Another reason for this approach to identifying pronouns is that it is important for organisations like ours to provide the space for individuals to be explicit about their gender identity. Indifference to gender identity is insensitivity. It’s a problem for many sections of society, and having the privilege of never having to think about it is no excuse.

Through my presentation on these issues at an all-staff meeting, I wanted to generate some discussion about this topic. This, I hoped, would help to clear up some of my own confusion about these issues as well as sensitise others to the issues I found myself confronting. In the presentation, I raised the following issues:

How should one respond when explicitly stating one’s gender identity becomes a norm — when almost all those in the organisation have preferred pronouns after their names? Does one just go along with the norm even though one may have reservations?
What about those who have not yet come to terms with their identity, who have gender-fluid identities, or who are still “in the closet”? There are many people who actually don’t know their own gender identity, or at least not well enough to be able to articulate it. Would the pressure of making them state an identity cause either further alienation or further reinforce a lie that they live with?
Working in an international organisation, using the “incorrect” pronoun could have practical consequences due to laws in one’s own country and due to social norms and pressures. In many countries, homosexuality is criminalised as well as religiously and socially condemned. Though sexual orientation is different from gender identity, in such a society, would coming out about an “alternative” identity be feasible?
While a staff member may be comfortable with the identity they choose within Includovate, coming out may have implications for future jobs and other situations.
Are we inadvertently excluding people who do not want to be open about their identities?

It was also interesting that one of the mandatory modules researchers in Includovate are expected to complete deals with the issue. As stated in the module: ‘Degrees of “outness” (being public about a Gender and Sexuality Diversity identity) and the timing of “coming out” vary by age and ethnicity and other socio-cultural factors. Different people have different experiences regarding the process of coming to terms with their sexuality and/or gender identity.’

During the presentation and after the staff meeting, I invited staff members to share their views, giving them the questions listed above to address. I was, not unexpectedly, pleased with the responses I got. Many of the respondents had not thought about the issue at all, but had simply gone along with the prevailing norm. I also received numerous written responses to the questions I had put to staff members, which further elucidated the discussion.

Except for one, none of the respondents said that they use a preferred pronoun in their personal emails, though two said that they mean to in future. Quite a few had cogent reasons for not using a preferred pronoun in their personal emails. One of the reasons mentioned was that, without a more detailed discussion on the issues involved, it is not relevant or necessary for all those with whom one communicated to spell out how one feels about the subject.

Also, the question arose as to whether it is helpful for people who live in less open and enabling societies for us to push this system forward without much contextualisation or debate. Some of those living in countries with a conservative culture said that using a preferred pronoun would create problems, to the extent that people may feel compelled to lie about their preferred gender identity. Also, it presents a similar problem for people who are still unsure about their preferred gender identity.

A number of possible benefits to using preferred pronouns were mentioned by respondents. For example, people from other cultures/countries could mistake one’s gender, leading to subsequent embarrassment when corrected. Declaring one’s preferred pronouns avoids this. It can also sensitise people to the important issues involved and generate discussion. Many felt that having a preferred pronoun within Includovate is useful, both for interactions with other staff members as well as clients. It was also felt by many that using the singular they when referring to people in general (rather than he/she) is helpful. Finally, there was a unanimous opinion that there should be a default option wherein a staff member is not required to state any preferred pronoun, thus indicating that the person does not mind whichever pronoun is used when referring to them.

All in all, this discussion has been a very useful and stimulating process. There are clearly no easy answers to the issues raised, and the wide diversity of opinions among Includovate staff seems to show that, at the present time, it would be best to discuss this issue with each person during the onboarding process. This also means that the issue should be flagged for all staff, and not just researchers. I, for one, still have some way to go before knowing what is the right thing to do in different situations.

About the Author

Based in India, Mariette has three decades of experience with various development and humanitarian organisations across the global South. Most of her work has been with socially excluded groups including people infected and affected by HIV/AIDS, girls and women who have been trafficked for prostitution, women facing violence, drug users, men who have sex with men, tribals, dalits/scheduled castes, small-scale fishworkers, and Tibetan refugees. She has worked on building capacities of organisations, programme management, research, advocacy, monitoring and evaluations, policy development. She holds a PhD in Development Studies with a focus on feminist methodology and has researched and published on issues related to gender, HIV/AIDS, forestry, and fisheries.

Includovate is a feminist research incubator that “walks the talk”. Includovate is an Australian social enterprise consisting of a consulting firm and research incubator that designs solutions for gender equality and social inclusion. Its mission is to incubate transformative and inclusive solutions for measuring, studying, and changing discriminatory norms that lead to poverty, inequality, and injustice. To know more about us at Includovate, follow our social media: @includovate, LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram.

Preferred Pronouns

Includovate

About the Author

Further Reading

0 Comments

Cancel reply

Company

Our Services

Research Areas