Why do some people include their pronouns in introductions and email signatures? I’ve seen people assume that pronoun introduction indicates a person is transgender or has certain political leanings. But in reality, introducing your pronouns isn’t about political alignment or even necessarily your gender identity; it’s more about prioritizing effective communication and safety in the workplace. My name is Jude, my pronouns are he/him/his, and I’d like to explain why and how you should include pronouns when introducing yourself in a professional setting, as well as when and how not to do it. 

People usually use pronouns that match their gender identity, but that identity might not match up with their name, appearance, or voice in a traditional or obvious way. People introduce their pronouns to clearly indicate how they’d like others to refer to them; it is not to get attention or announce a certain political alignment. And this isn’t just useful for transgender (trans) people. For example, a cis-gender (not transgender) woman may dress very masculine and be commonly mistaken for a man or a non-binary person. In that case, she may prefer having “she/her” on her nametag, so that clients stop misgendering her. 

But even if you’re cis-gender and gender-conforming, introducing your pronouns communicates that you intend to respect transgender people and their pronouns. This can provide some much-needed relief or assurance for transgender people, especially if you’re in a position of power relative to them. Trans people and trans allies are more likely to communicate with and trust you. Furthermore, if only transgender people introduced their pronouns, then introducing pronouns would immediately “out” somebody as transgender. That’s not something all trans people want. Even trans people who are usually open don’t always want to be open, in large part to avoid prejudice and harassment, which they are multiple times more likely to experience than cis-gender people (Bailey, 2014, “Scope of Transgender Discrimination”). The more control a trans person has over who knows and who doesn’t, the safer that trans person will feel and the less likely they are to be harassed. 

For example, our department (the Learning Café) has a transgender employee. But because we all have our pronouns in our email signatures, you cannot tell who’s trans and who’s not, even with prolonged, face-to-face interaction. This gives the trans member of our department the option to disclose or withhold the information how and when they see fit while still communicating their pronouns. It also makes it harder to harass our trans employee, not only because it’s harder to single them out but also because the prolific pronoun inclusion warns people that transphobia is not welcome in the space. Furthermore, when this employee first joined us, they were professionally “in the closet” but knew they wanted to transition soon, and thus were actively seeking a trans-inclusive workplace. At the time, the whole department was already including pronouns and often sported rainbow pins or other allyship indicators, and this was a major factor in that employee’s decision to maintain their position while transitioning. Contrary to a common trans-ignorant/phobic belief, Elias et al. (2018) assert that “being transgender does not affect a person’s ability to perform well at their job” (p. 58). Citing 3 different studies, they also assert that “transgender individuals have proven to be valuable assets to organizations, both in terms of intellect and innovation” (p. 57). Retaining transgender staff tends to benefit a workplace, especially when that workplace values diversity and innovation.

Jude Bialik He/Him

Academic Strategist