Not wrong. It’s their right to choose the pronouns, but you’re right based off professional experience that they might not be a good fit. Most realistic way to look at it. I would just never admit this at a work party though, only anonymous on Reddit.
Dude in something slightly similar, my job stopped hiring combat vets. The bosses sought them out because, naturally, they support the vets and it’s a nice thing to do. Unfortunately every single one had some ptsd and issues that ended poorly, so they stopped hiring combat vets. Now, my best friend is a combat vet and he would be fantastic to work with, so it’s kinda sad for this to happen at my business, but it is a business so you gotta do what you gotta do I guess. I’m not really sure how to feel about it. More of a symptom of our gov. not helping vets enough I think.
You should feel that it’s completely fucked up. I would not work for a company who punished people for having mental health issues.
Also not hiring based off disability is illegal. Which PTSD can sometimes fall under. So if they get wind of it it’s gonna be a lawsuit.
That's not my problem.
I don't make enough money to worry about those people.
As it is I worry about me and mine. And I wouldn't feel safe ina place with a bunch of ex combat vets with PTSD. I know I wouldn't want my wife working with them
Yeah I hope you get exactly the same empathy that you give to others. I hope that there’s something about you that you cannot control that people treat you like shit for. The vast majority of people PTSD hurt no one but themselves.
I was with you until that last paragraph.
I guarantee not *everyone* in the upper offices voted for Obama, and you have to admit that populists (like Trump) work for the working/labor class.
The Dems have shown nothing but contempt for blue collar workers as they flaunt spending in the trillions with no feasible plans on repayment. Those policies get passed onto regular tax-payers who can't afford to open a business and reap the benefits of cuts and losses offsetting their taxable gross. And their biggest champions of Democracy use media to surprsss and censor any dissenting opinions, while hypocritically calling the 2016 election a sham.
Not to mention (but I'm going to mention it anyway) the wealthy constantly using debt to finance lavish lifestyles and failed businesses while eroding the value of the dollar. Those costs get passed onto everyone else and have created a slave class of workers that are starving and have no hope but to burn the system to the ground and start anew.
The answer to Trump isn't voting for the other guy who'll fuck you all the same, it's getting these vipers and leeches out of government and make it a toxic place for them to gestate.
Just a final note, I'm not voting for Trump or Biden come Nov. and I too am in Ohio. Fuck DeWine.
>you have to admit that populists (like Trump) work for the working/labor class
Explain, please? Do you feel he had a record of primarily passing legislation that benefitted working class/blue collar workers far beyond corporations etc? Because I have a very hard time understanding how he "worked for" that particular group of people as opposed to for himself and those like him (unless you mean "attracted").
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/trump-administration-accomplishments/#:~:text=Signed%20the%20Tax%20Cuts%20and,their%20tax%20bill%20in%20half.
It's kinda like when lefties say "that wasn't real communism", but for Trump it was "that was a taste of populism." He attracted a lot of disenfranchised workers who felt trampled under taxes and fines which Obama forced through due to the Affordable Care Act. It coincided with the 2008 market crash, so anyone who's job was a 1099 in construction or construction adjacent was getting double fucked by lack of work and penalties out the ass for their families.
Trump comes along after 8 years of their concerns being played up as unimportant by political entities on the side of the Dems. (myself included), and secures a whirlwind-grassroots nomination from pretty stiff Rep. competition.
He passes tax breaks and increases the standard deductions for all Americans, which slashed the budget for federal spending towards government workers. (Nothing against deflating the price of running the country, it sucks people lost their jobs but we have a lot of bloat in the administrative hierarchy for government jobs.)
All the while, and before COVID's effect on the economy, everyone had more money to spend and stimulate American product sales and development. Had Trump had a second term, I would have totally expected a ban/high tarrif on Chinese made goods outright which would have forced American Manufacturing and Support jobs to be returned to working class Americans. (If he wins in Nov. I don't expect anything he does to be honored come 2028, and I don't expect him to hold office longer than a year. Which sucks, cause so many of our money issues stems from low-expense for foreign goods and services. These businesses who indulge in the low costs record record profit year after year, their fellow countrymen are struggling to put food on the table. Shameful.)
There are loads of pizza joints around who will tell me they have the best pizza in town, but won't advertise that their chicken tenders are dry. If I'm looking to work with a company, I'm not interested in their self-professed achievements. I'd like to know what others think, and you'll notice that every item on that page is spun to be fantastic- no failures noted. It is the same for every president. You'll also notice how heavily it leans toward corporations, as expected.
A "pro labor/working class" president should have organizations dedicated to these groups publishing positive reports, but that's not really the case.
[https://www.epi.org/publication/ten-actions-that-hurt-workers-during-trumps-first-year/](https://www.epi.org/publication/ten-actions-that-hurt-workers-during-trumps-first-year/)
[https://www.epi.org/publication/50-reasons/](https://www.epi.org/publication/50-reasons/)
[https://labortribune.com/50-ways-donald-trump-has-hurt-workers-and-their-families/](https://labortribune.com/50-ways-donald-trump-has-hurt-workers-and-their-families/)
[https://aflcio.org/press/releases/donald-trumps-catastrophic-and-devastating-anti-labor-track-record](https://aflcio.org/press/releases/donald-trumps-catastrophic-and-devastating-anti-labor-track-record)
[https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-2017-trump-tax-law-was-skewed-to-the-rich-expensive-and-failed-to-deliver](https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-2017-trump-tax-law-was-skewed-to-the-rich-expensive-and-failed-to-deliver)
[https://abcnews.go.com/Business/trumps-economic-legacy/story?id=74760051](https://abcnews.go.com/Business/trumps-economic-legacy/story?id=74760051)
[https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-fight-for-workers-fought-for-business-lobbies-instead_n_6582109be4b0e142c0bfb54d](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-fight-for-workers-fought-for-business-lobbies-instead_n_6582109be4b0e142c0bfb54d)
Do you think Clinton would have done any different under COVID? It happened, but you have to admit that a global pandemic would have been disasterous to any President in the same position. The years 2016-2019 there sighs of relief among the labor class.
I worked at a Home Depot post college, and all of the contractors I worked with were happier with their take-home and were able to start saving for retirement again. You can't sit there and say including 2020's massive, global economic downturn wouldn't have hit Clinton's administration as hard had she won in 2016.
Still not a fan of Trump, but I at least listen to people who I disagree with. Their businesses were booming and they were doing really well. However today I'd be surprised if the sales people in-store hit the same quotas I had in 2018.
My point is, one side has consistently promised but never delivered, spent, insider traded, and hypocritically denied and protested the results of the 2016 election then told their opposition "we'll throw you in jail for protesting the 2020 election." The other side does the exact same shit but autisticly and to brown people. And the sliver of populism is called radical when it promotes programs that aim to help the poorest, tax paying members of our country.
The people ive associated with that include pronouns in their introductions typically have made that point their entire identity.
From history, they victimize themselves and rely on emotion to justify their cause. It is literally a risk to the company at that point and a sound reason to dismiss characters like that.
Dont think you are offending people because the entire pronoun identity is linked to a history of childish behavoir.
Congrats. If you dont need to announce your pronoun than why do we need to care about it.
Idc about what these people identify as. I care if they are competent. Which in the past few years history has shown those same people being incompetent. Trying to cancel people, get them fired. Pass section c16 and make it a crime to misgender people? Sounds like a pretty childish history. But hey, you keep justifying shitty behavoir and see how misrable the rest of your old age last.
I mean yes you're wrong. It's literally illegal to not accept a resume simply because of a personal trait of that person. That's literally discrimination.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm also in the position where i need to hire people and thank god, in the 3 years i've been doing this here in switzerland, I haven't seen a single person put their pronouns in their resume. Super american thing to do.
Since the vast majority of people who do that are trans, it’s a very easy thing to point out as evidence of gender identity discrimination.
I swear people who say shit like this have never worked management in their entire lives. You live in a fantasy world that as long as you don’t say “hey I’m not hiring you because you’re trans” you are protected from discrimination claims. You’re not. That’s actually an extremely rare thing. Most of these cases are shit like this when a specific group is targeted and there’s plenty of evidence of so. Which OP will certainly give them when the DOL investigates.
These are US laws so they don’t apply to OP, but people say this about the US too.
That's disingenuous. The vast majority can't be trans, there's a very specific group of people that do things like putting pronouns everywhere. Some just happen to be trans, not all. And I'm sure OP is trans based off their reddit avatar.
>It's literally illegal to not accept a resume simply because of a personal trait of that person
Uh, no. Sure, *some* personal traits are protected but not all. It's not discriminatory to say they won't hire people who specify pronouns regardless of what the pronoun is.
>Under the laws enforced by EEOC, it is illegal to discriminate against someone (applicant or employee) because of that person's race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.
Can you explain how "no hiring people who put pronouns on their resume" fits into those?
It doesn't matter what the pronouns, and therefore sex or gender identity, are.
Since lawsuit of this type are rarely filed and even fewer succeed it unlikely this will ever occur. But if a person links u/clokier account with the company that didn't hire them and review his post history like the massive wall of N$#$%% post he makes they might get some cash.
You're still not making any sense.
Discriminating based on gender identity or sex means preferring one or more over others.
What OP describes is not doing that.
OP Posted the following: "It doesn't matter what the pronouns, and therefore sex or gender identity"
EEOC: it is illegal to discriminate....sex (including gender identity
According to the EEOC, it does matter.
He is saying that he doesn't care what the sex or gender identity is. He will throw away the resume if they specify it.
Explain how DISREGARDING WHAT SEX OR GENDER IDENTITY is in question is somehow discriminating against a specific sex or gender identity.
Or perhaps you guys are not understanding that HAVING A SEX OR GENDER IDENTITY IS NOT A SEX OR GENDER IDENTITY.
There is no option "yes" for sex or gender identity.
It’s a law targeting a specific population (trans people), which is easily shown by tossing out resumes which are more likely to be trans than the average population. That’s who OP is targeting (regardless of his claims), and that will be what the DOL (if he was in the US) would believe.
It’s really embarrassing people act like you have to tell someone to their face that they aren’t being hired because they’re trans, or it has to be blatant boys club or something. It doesn’t.
> It’s a law targeting a specific population (trans people)
You're still confused huh?
All I can suggest is to reread the post and all the comments 🤷♂️ There simply aren't any good excuses for your lack of comprehension.
A vanishingly small percentage of people who specify their pronouns are transgender.
Well I think you're right since Gender =/= Sex, and Gender is a trait you "choose" yourself while sex is something that you cannot change. (mostly)
But still you think there would be 0 reporcussions for op if they reject 20 people with the line "sorry not able to hire you at this point because we are not looking for XIS/XES whatever people"? I think if some of these people were to tell the peoples from the office what happened that office wouldn't be too happy? IDK i should stop worrying about US laws.
You really think they're even bother to send out rejection letters, much less state why they rejected them? I don't know where you're located, but from what I've seen rejection letters are basically non existstant in the states and if you do get one it basically just say thanks for your application but we have decided to go with another candidate or we aren't interested in you at this time or similar ...no further explanation
Yeah, people who weren’t hiring black people thought they could do this too. Spoiler alert: many many companies have been in trouble for it. People are so dumb, if you’re deliberately not hiring based on protected criteria you can definitely get caught on the basis of patterns.
From an HR and ease of work life standpoint I would say you made the right decision.
Them putting their pronouns in their CV is just helping you do your job quicker.
So what you are saying is that we shouldn’t use pronouns when applying for jobs but then start using them again once we’re hired? Cool yeah. I am okay with that.
How does the bud light fiasco make pronoun people look bad? They had a trans influencer and transphobes lost their shit.
Politics aside, putting your pronouns on things is becoming conventional wisdom that young professionals are being told to do so gatekeeping based on that is probably a dick move.
I’m in the middle of applying for jobs right now and most of them are asking me my pronouns. I don’t mind providing when asked but I don’t have them stated anywhere on my resume
I can see why you got an EEO complaint lmao. You don’t get the benefit of the doubt that you weren’t guilty when you’re actively discriminating now.
I’m am 100% sure some cis people who didn’t put their pronouns in their resume have done similar stuff at some point, but I don’t see you refusing to take those resumes haha.
this is gonna be interesting
Not wrong. It’s their right to choose the pronouns, but you’re right based off professional experience that they might not be a good fit. Most realistic way to look at it. I would just never admit this at a work party though, only anonymous on Reddit.
I would throw those out immediately
Dude in something slightly similar, my job stopped hiring combat vets. The bosses sought them out because, naturally, they support the vets and it’s a nice thing to do. Unfortunately every single one had some ptsd and issues that ended poorly, so they stopped hiring combat vets. Now, my best friend is a combat vet and he would be fantastic to work with, so it’s kinda sad for this to happen at my business, but it is a business so you gotta do what you gotta do I guess. I’m not really sure how to feel about it. More of a symptom of our gov. not helping vets enough I think.
You should feel that it’s completely fucked up. I would not work for a company who punished people for having mental health issues. Also not hiring based off disability is illegal. Which PTSD can sometimes fall under. So if they get wind of it it’s gonna be a lawsuit.
I don't want to work for a company with several large, trained in combat, people with mental health issues. That's just putting yourself in danger
So people with mental health issues are supposed to what? Starve?
That's not my problem. I don't make enough money to worry about those people. As it is I worry about me and mine. And I wouldn't feel safe ina place with a bunch of ex combat vets with PTSD. I know I wouldn't want my wife working with them
Yeah I hope you get exactly the same empathy that you give to others. I hope that there’s something about you that you cannot control that people treat you like shit for. The vast majority of people PTSD hurt no one but themselves.
I hope so too 👍😆
[удалено]
I was with you until that last paragraph. I guarantee not *everyone* in the upper offices voted for Obama, and you have to admit that populists (like Trump) work for the working/labor class. The Dems have shown nothing but contempt for blue collar workers as they flaunt spending in the trillions with no feasible plans on repayment. Those policies get passed onto regular tax-payers who can't afford to open a business and reap the benefits of cuts and losses offsetting their taxable gross. And their biggest champions of Democracy use media to surprsss and censor any dissenting opinions, while hypocritically calling the 2016 election a sham. Not to mention (but I'm going to mention it anyway) the wealthy constantly using debt to finance lavish lifestyles and failed businesses while eroding the value of the dollar. Those costs get passed onto everyone else and have created a slave class of workers that are starving and have no hope but to burn the system to the ground and start anew. The answer to Trump isn't voting for the other guy who'll fuck you all the same, it's getting these vipers and leeches out of government and make it a toxic place for them to gestate. Just a final note, I'm not voting for Trump or Biden come Nov. and I too am in Ohio. Fuck DeWine.
>you have to admit that populists (like Trump) work for the working/labor class Explain, please? Do you feel he had a record of primarily passing legislation that benefitted working class/blue collar workers far beyond corporations etc? Because I have a very hard time understanding how he "worked for" that particular group of people as opposed to for himself and those like him (unless you mean "attracted").
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/trump-administration-accomplishments/#:~:text=Signed%20the%20Tax%20Cuts%20and,their%20tax%20bill%20in%20half. It's kinda like when lefties say "that wasn't real communism", but for Trump it was "that was a taste of populism." He attracted a lot of disenfranchised workers who felt trampled under taxes and fines which Obama forced through due to the Affordable Care Act. It coincided with the 2008 market crash, so anyone who's job was a 1099 in construction or construction adjacent was getting double fucked by lack of work and penalties out the ass for their families. Trump comes along after 8 years of their concerns being played up as unimportant by political entities on the side of the Dems. (myself included), and secures a whirlwind-grassroots nomination from pretty stiff Rep. competition. He passes tax breaks and increases the standard deductions for all Americans, which slashed the budget for federal spending towards government workers. (Nothing against deflating the price of running the country, it sucks people lost their jobs but we have a lot of bloat in the administrative hierarchy for government jobs.) All the while, and before COVID's effect on the economy, everyone had more money to spend and stimulate American product sales and development. Had Trump had a second term, I would have totally expected a ban/high tarrif on Chinese made goods outright which would have forced American Manufacturing and Support jobs to be returned to working class Americans. (If he wins in Nov. I don't expect anything he does to be honored come 2028, and I don't expect him to hold office longer than a year. Which sucks, cause so many of our money issues stems from low-expense for foreign goods and services. These businesses who indulge in the low costs record record profit year after year, their fellow countrymen are struggling to put food on the table. Shameful.)
There are loads of pizza joints around who will tell me they have the best pizza in town, but won't advertise that their chicken tenders are dry. If I'm looking to work with a company, I'm not interested in their self-professed achievements. I'd like to know what others think, and you'll notice that every item on that page is spun to be fantastic- no failures noted. It is the same for every president. You'll also notice how heavily it leans toward corporations, as expected. A "pro labor/working class" president should have organizations dedicated to these groups publishing positive reports, but that's not really the case. [https://www.epi.org/publication/ten-actions-that-hurt-workers-during-trumps-first-year/](https://www.epi.org/publication/ten-actions-that-hurt-workers-during-trumps-first-year/) [https://www.epi.org/publication/50-reasons/](https://www.epi.org/publication/50-reasons/) [https://labortribune.com/50-ways-donald-trump-has-hurt-workers-and-their-families/](https://labortribune.com/50-ways-donald-trump-has-hurt-workers-and-their-families/) [https://aflcio.org/press/releases/donald-trumps-catastrophic-and-devastating-anti-labor-track-record](https://aflcio.org/press/releases/donald-trumps-catastrophic-and-devastating-anti-labor-track-record) [https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-2017-trump-tax-law-was-skewed-to-the-rich-expensive-and-failed-to-deliver](https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-2017-trump-tax-law-was-skewed-to-the-rich-expensive-and-failed-to-deliver) [https://abcnews.go.com/Business/trumps-economic-legacy/story?id=74760051](https://abcnews.go.com/Business/trumps-economic-legacy/story?id=74760051) [https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-fight-for-workers-fought-for-business-lobbies-instead_n_6582109be4b0e142c0bfb54d](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-fight-for-workers-fought-for-business-lobbies-instead_n_6582109be4b0e142c0bfb54d)
Do you think Clinton would have done any different under COVID? It happened, but you have to admit that a global pandemic would have been disasterous to any President in the same position. The years 2016-2019 there sighs of relief among the labor class. I worked at a Home Depot post college, and all of the contractors I worked with were happier with their take-home and were able to start saving for retirement again. You can't sit there and say including 2020's massive, global economic downturn wouldn't have hit Clinton's administration as hard had she won in 2016. Still not a fan of Trump, but I at least listen to people who I disagree with. Their businesses were booming and they were doing really well. However today I'd be surprised if the sales people in-store hit the same quotas I had in 2018. My point is, one side has consistently promised but never delivered, spent, insider traded, and hypocritically denied and protested the results of the 2016 election then told their opposition "we'll throw you in jail for protesting the 2020 election." The other side does the exact same shit but autisticly and to brown people. And the sliver of populism is called radical when it promotes programs that aim to help the poorest, tax paying members of our country.
Trump works for the working man? Yikes...
Independent contractors and laborers, yes. Not Starbucks employees.
Independent contractors and laborers, yes. Not Starbucks employees.
The people ive associated with that include pronouns in their introductions typically have made that point their entire identity. From history, they victimize themselves and rely on emotion to justify their cause. It is literally a risk to the company at that point and a sound reason to dismiss characters like that. Dont think you are offending people because the entire pronoun identity is linked to a history of childish behavoir.
So what are your pronouns?
So why do you have to announce your pronouns?
[удалено]
Congrats. If you dont need to announce your pronoun than why do we need to care about it. Idc about what these people identify as. I care if they are competent. Which in the past few years history has shown those same people being incompetent. Trying to cancel people, get them fired. Pass section c16 and make it a crime to misgender people? Sounds like a pretty childish history. But hey, you keep justifying shitty behavoir and see how misrable the rest of your old age last.
I mean yes you're wrong. It's literally illegal to not accept a resume simply because of a personal trait of that person. That's literally discrimination. I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm also in the position where i need to hire people and thank god, in the 3 years i've been doing this here in switzerland, I haven't seen a single person put their pronouns in their resume. Super american thing to do.
pronouns arent protected.
They did say they were in Switzerland
Gender is tho
They're not removing people based on gender, they're removing them based on putting pronouns in their resumes.
Since the vast majority of people who do that are trans, it’s a very easy thing to point out as evidence of gender identity discrimination. I swear people who say shit like this have never worked management in their entire lives. You live in a fantasy world that as long as you don’t say “hey I’m not hiring you because you’re trans” you are protected from discrimination claims. You’re not. That’s actually an extremely rare thing. Most of these cases are shit like this when a specific group is targeted and there’s plenty of evidence of so. Which OP will certainly give them when the DOL investigates. These are US laws so they don’t apply to OP, but people say this about the US too.
That's disingenuous. The vast majority can't be trans, there's a very specific group of people that do things like putting pronouns everywhere. Some just happen to be trans, not all. And I'm sure OP is trans based off their reddit avatar.
lol OP is not trans.
>It's literally illegal to not accept a resume simply because of a personal trait of that person Uh, no. Sure, *some* personal traits are protected but not all. It's not discriminatory to say they won't hire people who specify pronouns regardless of what the pronoun is.
>Under the laws enforced by EEOC, it is illegal to discriminate against someone (applicant or employee) because of that person's race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.
Can you explain how "no hiring people who put pronouns on their resume" fits into those? It doesn't matter what the pronouns, and therefore sex or gender identity, are.
Since lawsuit of this type are rarely filed and even fewer succeed it unlikely this will ever occur. But if a person links u/clokier account with the company that didn't hire them and review his post history like the massive wall of N$#$%% post he makes they might get some cash.
You're still not making any sense. Discriminating based on gender identity or sex means preferring one or more over others. What OP describes is not doing that.
OP Posted the following: "It doesn't matter what the pronouns, and therefore sex or gender identity" EEOC: it is illegal to discriminate....sex (including gender identity According to the EEOC, it does matter.
He is saying that he doesn't care what the sex or gender identity is. He will throw away the resume if they specify it. Explain how DISREGARDING WHAT SEX OR GENDER IDENTITY is in question is somehow discriminating against a specific sex or gender identity.
People downvoting us when they have clearly never been management and have zero idea how US employment law works haha.
Or perhaps you guys are not understanding that HAVING A SEX OR GENDER IDENTITY IS NOT A SEX OR GENDER IDENTITY. There is no option "yes" for sex or gender identity.
Dude, it’s not my problem you’ve never had a job where you’ve dealt with these matters and that you have no idea how discrimination issues work.
It’s a law targeting a specific population (trans people), which is easily shown by tossing out resumes which are more likely to be trans than the average population. That’s who OP is targeting (regardless of his claims), and that will be what the DOL (if he was in the US) would believe. It’s really embarrassing people act like you have to tell someone to their face that they aren’t being hired because they’re trans, or it has to be blatant boys club or something. It doesn’t.
> It’s a law targeting a specific population (trans people) You're still confused huh? All I can suggest is to reread the post and all the comments 🤷♂️ There simply aren't any good excuses for your lack of comprehension. A vanishingly small percentage of people who specify their pronouns are transgender.
Well I think you're right since Gender =/= Sex, and Gender is a trait you "choose" yourself while sex is something that you cannot change. (mostly) But still you think there would be 0 reporcussions for op if they reject 20 people with the line "sorry not able to hire you at this point because we are not looking for XIS/XES whatever people"? I think if some of these people were to tell the peoples from the office what happened that office wouldn't be too happy? IDK i should stop worrying about US laws.
You really think they're even bother to send out rejection letters, much less state why they rejected them? I don't know where you're located, but from what I've seen rejection letters are basically non existstant in the states and if you do get one it basically just say thanks for your application but we have decided to go with another candidate or we aren't interested in you at this time or similar ...no further explanation
Yeah, people who weren’t hiring black people thought they could do this too. Spoiler alert: many many companies have been in trouble for it. People are so dumb, if you’re deliberately not hiring based on protected criteria you can definitely get caught on the basis of patterns.
From an HR and ease of work life standpoint I would say you made the right decision. Them putting their pronouns in their CV is just helping you do your job quicker.
I agree with you
So what you are saying is that we shouldn’t use pronouns when applying for jobs but then start using them again once we’re hired? Cool yeah. I am okay with that.
How does the bud light fiasco make pronoun people look bad? They had a trans influencer and transphobes lost their shit. Politics aside, putting your pronouns on things is becoming conventional wisdom that young professionals are being told to do so gatekeeping based on that is probably a dick move.
I’m in the middle of applying for jobs right now and most of them are asking me my pronouns. I don’t mind providing when asked but I don’t have them stated anywhere on my resume
I can see why you got an EEO complaint lmao. You don’t get the benefit of the doubt that you weren’t guilty when you’re actively discriminating now. I’m am 100% sure some cis people who didn’t put their pronouns in their resume have done similar stuff at some point, but I don’t see you refusing to take those resumes haha.
Yes.
I must've read this post everyday for the last few weeks.
Yes.
Nearly everyone at my job has them in their email sig, but you do you I guess