Related Posts
BAE = Bacon and Eggs 🍳 🐷
Have we bottomed?
Additional Posts in Law
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
BAE = Bacon and Eggs 🍳 🐷
Have we bottomed?
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Download the Fishbowl app to unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Copy and paste embed code on your site
Send download link to your phone
OR
Scan your QR code to download
Fishbowl app on your mobile
My firm does and it’s been great. Obviously it’s a step towards inclusion which is great. But also I have a gender neutral ethnic name so it’s been extra nice for me to identify that I’m a woman upfront so that I don’t get that awkward email referring to me as a “he”.
I (cis-woman) also have a name that regularly results in me getting confused for a man. I know I should be adding my pronouns to promote trans inclusivity. But I’d be lying if I said I didn’t also appreciate having an excuse to preempt confusion about my own gender.
Texas - have never seen it and would be surprised to down here. I’m a cis-woman with a traditionally male first name and I’ve found that it can sometimes get me better results when people don’t immediately assume I’m female in my emails. I wouldn’t include my pronouns for that reason if it were to become widespread.
It’s also the reason I only put my initials instead of my first (female) name.
Oof a lot of responses on here are just...wow.
I’m not sure how acknowledging someone’s identity is “irrelevant” or “unnecessary” when they may be part of a marginalized group that has been specifically made to feel disenfranchised and, to borrow the term, irrelevant, is a bad thing. Additionally, if identity is so irrelevant, what does it matters if people put their preferred pronouns in a signature block, even if it is just as gesture of solidarity with others.
I think we all know that there are still people for whom identity clearly matters, as evidenced by Attorney 2’s comments on their firm culture and how this would play out there, so to pretend identity doesn’t matter and that this is some kind of politically correct crusade smacks of obvious privilege and a lack of empathy.
I’ll also state that I have an unambiguously female name and get called Mr. and sir routinely in emails by opposing counsel and it’s frustrating as hell. Including pronouns for me at least makes them look like bigger idiots since they apparently can’t be bothered to read my name correctly in the first place. And yes, I think that people who automatically assume I’m a man because I’m an attorney and don’t take the time to read my whole name are lazy idiots.
Maybe including pronouns disrupts the easy life of just identifying everyone in this profession as a man and that’s just too hard for some people.
As you said...Wow. How judgmental and presumptuous that virtue signaling in an e-mail signature block and attempting to shame others into doing the same, somehow makes you a better person or more inclusive, Nor do I believe that this empty gesture does anything to promote inclusiveness or diversity. Don’t know where you practice, but I can honestly say that I have never been incorrectly referenced in more than 20 years of practice.
yes, yes, and I'd say pretty widely. most partners I deal with seem to use it, as does the head of the firm. but those happen to be a pretty liberal subset of our partnership, so my impression could be skewed.
I find it terribly amusing that the email telling us we now have the option of choosing between exactly three pronouns to include in our signature was accompanied by a memo about how gender can be fluid and non binary and people may prefer any number of pronouns or even multiple ones.
I find it slightly less amusing that widescale adoption would essentially create peer pressure to "out" one's gender. And I find it... not amusing, but in the same category of impressions, that this pressure would force women (cis, trans, or otherwise), many of whom have spent a career aware of and annoyed by the fact that their gender is a factor in how others perceive their professional competence and interpret their behavior, communications, and tone, to put that asterisk on every email they send instead of treating gender as the professionally irrelevant detail it should be.
But hey, I'm a cishet male who most people would call white, so, what do I know about conventions that pressure people to announce their minority status everywhere. maybe most people actually love the opportunity. perhaps the best diversity initiative would implement more and more self-identification norms. I could add "Jew, Doesn't Roll on Shabbos" to my signature so people know not to email me.
A17: If you don’t like reading, you’re in the wrong profession and the wrong conversation. If you don’t want to read someone’s post, don’t. No need to get all passive-aggressive about your deficient literacy skills.
Associate 2. I couldn’t agree with you more. This pandering to irrelevant identity politics has got to stop. On the very rare occasions (one in more than 20 years), that I used the wrong salutation (Mr./Ms.) in an e-mail, because I had not met the person, I was politely corrected and it was no big deal. Also, I am not going to play into the non-binary ideology that there are infinite numbers of genders and that I have to announce mine to the world so that I can ensure everyone knows my politically correct politics. This should have nothing to do with how you practice law, represent clients or interact with counsel.
A11. Having your boss set up a work place policy is forcing you to comply or lose your job. I also believe that this is a meaningless gesture, just like a black square on Instagram. The purpose is not inclusivity, it is just a virtue signaling so that everyone knows what a good “ woke” person you are. How you treat people in your daily interactions is what is important. Inclusivity comes with a change of hearts and minds. In 2020, all I see is corporate America, celebrities, big tech, education, the legal field to name just a few, bending over backwards in an effort to be inclusive and diverse. However, it is never good enough.
Yes. It’s optional but easy to add to a default signature. When they first rolled it out, I AGONIZED over whether to add it to my signature. I don’t know why but I felt absolutely terrified.
Actually... I do know why. Some of the comments on this thread are exactly why I felt so afraid, and still do. I’m a cis, nonwhite woman who has spent her whole professional life trying to avoid attention to my gender or other aspects of my identity at all costs. The idea of “signaling” anything about who I am or what I value, of sparking a reaction in a recipient like some of the comments on this thread, of being dismissed and rejected in that way, is gut wrenchingly scary. I know the majority of people in this profession are not “like” me, and I’ve always felt the safest approach was to avoid reminding anyone about it.
But something occurred to me. I work in biglaw. These are places of power, and I joined a firm that outwardly values diversity and inclusiveness for a reason (in fact, it was a primary differentiating factor when interviewing). If I was going to break my back for the corporate world, I wanted to do it at a company that walked the walk, where the clients I busted my ass for to help profit shared some of the same priorities. And this sort of initiative (one that is hugely important to yes, a MINORITY of people - that’s what the word minority means, that’s a lot of what we’re talking about when we say inclusivity: supporting even people and interests that do not constitute the norm by fact of majority) is exactly what I would hope for from a company that claims to value these things. So it really is on me to subscribe to the types of corporate actions that led me to join in the first place. I am in a position of day-to-day influence in society by the nature of my job. I run hundred million dollar deals for major companies. And it’s like EP1 said: if anyone asks about it, I can say that our firm has made a commitment to inclusiveness and this is part of that. End of story. It doesn’t have to be everyone’s “issue.” Ultimately we will attract clients (and lawyers) for whom this TYPE of action is important. These are who we will represent, compensate, promote. (I use my role as an example, but it’s certainly not limited to biglaw finance attorneys. I do believe that, as legal professionals who swear an oath and have ethical duties, we all have certain responsibilities in how we conduct ourselves. For me, this aligns with that.)
And also, that feeling of fear that comes from going against the grain? Of discomfort because not everyone will get it, and some will actively be derisive, disgusted, or worse? Shouldering that on behalf of colleagues in a minority position — trying to make it more normal and safe for those few? This is EXACTLY what allies. Fucking. Do. If I don’t take some of that fear and burden on myself, how could I in good faith expect someone to do the same for me?
One more thought. (I’ve thought about this a lot. I still wake up some mornings and wonder if I should take it off my signature. I deliberate before hitting send to people that I don’t know. I use my shorter “reply” signature when I feel less bold. I acknowledge that I have the privilege of being able to literally “turn it off.”) The thing is, I can make this show of allyship while ALSO holding complicated feelings about whether the signature block is a “good” thing for me, personally (as a woman, a person of color, an associate, a....whatever), or whether it’s good for ALL trans people, or whatever other (valid!) critiques of it there may be. We are all so disposed to make things binary. We like to issue-spot. “If I can think of a potential downside, then it must be bad.” “If I don’t care about it, it must not be important.” But these things are not actually black and white. They are complicated and intersectional. And it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
I think for my part a lot of my issues with it would go away if I were quite confident that pronouns becoming a firm norm wouldn't thereby pressure associates and staff otherwise disinclined to announce their genders on all communications to do so.
you seem pretty confident that the pendulum is currently on the other side of the z axis, but I (maybe erroneously; haven't taken a scientific poll) see it swinging this way and fast. so perhaps the principled thing to do in my position is use the pronoun for now - contributing to normalization of the practice and showing solidarity with the trans minority - and to reassess and stop doing so when I feel we're at some critical mass that makes pronoun-anonymity the practice in need of 'normalization.' maybe that won't happen, but as I've mentioned, it seems to me to be an example of how more senior lawyers at firms can create an environment of subtle pressure without even thinking about it.
I don't know. I usually abide by categorical imperatives, and try not to adopt a behavior that I think would be problematic for everyone similarly situated to adopt. so I might still default to "do I think this firm would be a harder place on balance for more people if this were the norm, or not?" And I just don't know and should probably be less lazy about seeking out honest opinion of more junior women who are associates and clerks so that I can have a more informed intuition about that.
But some responses on this thread don't give me confidence that I can ask that question without a) being perceived as a tranaphobic agitator (even anonymously) or b) receiving guarded answers from people afraid to seem transphobic.
that worries me. people should be able to express their good faith worries about being discriminated against without those concerns being themselves treated as prejudice. if we can't have those conversations, the conventions that determine inclusivity norms will not arise from civil discourse or actual growth in public acceptance. and top-down victories on that front have a way of being short-lived.
We don’t and, frankly, I don’t think anyone in our market is going to do so anytime soon.
They'll do whatever Target, Best Buy, and General Mills tells them to do!
No and I hope we don’t adopt it either. I don’t care what gender anyone is if they do their job. I’m so sick of the hypersensitivity/pandering to gender identity.
Yes, and I think it’s a simple gesture that normalizes the issue for trans folks, which could make their work life just a little easier.
It screens I can't figure out my gender. Not something my firm is going to embrace.
Attorney 2, off the record, every place that is currently trans friendly was formally not trans friendly. Just don’t get in the way and help where you can.
Rising Star
Tech, SF. It's encouraged but not mandatory. Probably 5-10%, mostly People team. We do have a number of trans employees and it is a kind gesture.
No, it’s nowhere here in the middle of the country. Frankly, many would consider it a sign of a person being overly sensitive or annoyingly political. If someone uses the wrong pronoun, just correct them if it bothers you. But the premise that we all need to specify our pronouns is a controversial position that’s obnoxious in the work place.
Although maybe not yet at your firm, the future of Biglaw leadership recognizes the importance of diversity & inclusion and how seriously clients are taking it in every rfp and pitch we do. So, perhaps the right people will take you more seriously if you do.
I don’t understand why this is critical information. What percent of emails from strangers with gender-ambiguous names do people get? Maybe 0.5-1% of my emails fall into that category. In such cases, I click in the firm bio link in the signature block, and see what the firm refers to the person as. It takes literally 3 seconds. In total I think I have maybe devoted 10 minutes of my adult life to resolving the gender of an ambiguous email sender. I therefore don’t buy the “practical solution to a frequent vexing problem” argument, so it must be about performative announcements of identity status. If a person feels like that is important that is fine, but why does everyone need to do it? Or if that is a straw man, why is it even recommended that I do this, if I have a completely gender-unambiguous name?
EP1: That’s fair, helpful, and makes good sense.
We do include them. This is not why we include them, but a response to people saying they are irrelevant or worse: a large pro bono practice we have is filing legal name changes for transgender people. You would be surprised at how difficult the process of changing ones own name is. It’s a difficult personal and emotional process as well. I think having our pronouns in our email signatures makes those clients feel safe and welcome as they work with us during a stressful time. I don’t see how it hurts anyone, and this is just one example of how it helps people.
A9 Oh please... This is too much.
Chicago biglaw. Encouraged by firm but optional. I opted in. ✊🏽
It’s optional at our firm, but they added tools to make it easy to do. I have gotten several comments/questions on it from clients and others and when I explained it was to set the tone for a more inclusive workplace and I’ve gotten incredible support and respect and a few of them have added it to theirs. It’s a small thing for me, but huge to the lgbtq members of our team to see that genuine support. I get that it’s not for everyone, but actually made me feel like I was making difference by being an ally (I’m cisgender male).
We don’t, but I suspect that will change in the next 6-12 months. I’m in a west coast market and a number of our peer firms have been adding pronouns to email signatures in the last couple of months.
The only time I’ve seen that it’s been in the signatures of public defenders or legal aid.
Great! How can we get it in your place of employment?
Rising Star
Pro tip: a good way to never get a gender neutral name wrong is by simply using Hi (first name) I have not directed an email to anyone using Mr./Mrs. in the last five years. If it is in a letter I and I am in doubt I will take the time to find out the individuals gender.
You can use “Attorney Jones” rather than Ms/Mr/Mr. in a more formal email.
Obviously I work in government, but no. No one does this in our court system.
My name isn’t ambiguous and it’s clear how I should be referred based on convention.
I really couldn’t care less if someone wants to put that in the bottom of their signature block, but I think it’s tacky.
JLC1, I agree with your position in general, but I am curious what you mean by “tacky”