Well, I know I'm putting myself out there for criticism here, but I first came to this site pondering balancing skepticism and faith, so that shouldn't be anything new :) I hope those of you I have interacted with here before will appreciate my efforts to be open and genuine and to listen to and consider other perspectives as I try to articulate (and thereby better understand) my own.
I received notice of a new work policy recently that requests employees include their preferred pronouns (e.g. he/him) in the email signature line. My initial gut response was "I don't want to do that" and I've spent some time pondering why that was my reaction. I think the main reasons I responded that way are:
1. I don't think it's necessary. Names (especially in a culturally diverse workplace) are often ambiguous with respect to gender and this has never caused a great problem. By all means, if someone would like to specify to avoid confusion or because it's particularly important to them, no problem, but asking everyone to do this feels like a solution for a non-problem.
2. There are many pieces of personal information that could be included in an email signature but are not typically (e.g. hearing or visual impairment, dyslexia, on the autistic spectrum, visible or non-visible disability etc.). That this has been singled out as a priority seems odd and arbitrary.
3. This feels like an effort to shift a cultural norm that I am comfortable with. I like the idea that cultural norms exist in general, (though I am equally comfortable with the fact that none of us fits them all). I think diversity is fascinating and valuable, but I don't like pretending that norms don't exist, or that they are unhelpful.
Lots of other thoughts here, but maybe that's enough to get the conversation rolling. As always, I appreciate the input of those who take the time to respond.
I received notice of a new work policy recently that requests employees include their preferred pronouns (e.g. he/him) in the email signature line. My initial gut response was "I don't want to do that" and I've spent some time pondering why that was my reaction. I think the main reasons I responded that way are:
1. I don't think it's necessary. Names (especially in a culturally diverse workplace) are often ambiguous with respect to gender and this has never caused a great problem. By all means, if someone would like to specify to avoid confusion or because it's particularly important to them, no problem, but asking everyone to do this feels like a solution for a non-problem.
2. There are many pieces of personal information that could be included in an email signature but are not typically (e.g. hearing or visual impairment, dyslexia, on the autistic spectrum, visible or non-visible disability etc.). That this has been singled out as a priority seems odd and arbitrary.
3. This feels like an effort to shift a cultural norm that I am comfortable with. I like the idea that cultural norms exist in general, (though I am equally comfortable with the fact that none of us fits them all). I think diversity is fascinating and valuable, but I don't like pretending that norms don't exist, or that they are unhelpful.
Lots of other thoughts here, but maybe that's enough to get the conversation rolling. As always, I appreciate the input of those who take the time to respond.
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3tQAKP5
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire