Simple Statement of Identification From the Individual

RandomSourceAnimal - [original thread]
Inserting your pronouns into an email signature is unnecessary and has never been standard practice in any company.

Things aren't standard until they are. As per my last message in this chain, you're only going to see this more and more because companies prefer diversity or at the very least the veneer of such.

what matters is the demand to comply.

If I'm working a job, I'm already being demanded to comply to a lot of things I would rather not do because I need money. The difference between the Hindu example and this one is that the Hindu is doing something that would be saying something that actively contradicts their beliefs (praising someone they don't want to praise) whereas a company asking for pronouns is a simple statement of identification from the individual.

You appear to be simultaneously asserting that companies are doing this for a political reason ("because companies prefer diversity") and that conforming to it is somehow not a political act ("a simple statement of identification from the individual"). Those two positions simply cannot be reconciled.

What if your employer insisted that all unmarried women have email signatures with the honorific "Ms." and all married women have email signatures with the honorific "Mrs." (while men would be "Mr." regardless). Do you see how that demand could offend people, as it presupposes that a woman's marital status is relevant in a business context? But it's just a "simple statement of identification from the individual".

History is replete with examples of simple factual statements being signifiers in ideological fights that are, in turn, manifestations of power struggles between competing political factions. A good example is the conflict between the Old Believers and the other factions in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Go to the wikipedia page, consider the "Main Alterations" section and ponder how much blood has been shed over so little.

And I simply cannot get over the incongruity of leftists celebrating the coercive power of capital.