'The Bartleby' -- Refuse Without Fighting.

If no one ever picks a hill to die on, nothing changes. No one wants to die on the hill of dramatic overstatement, and so incredibly hateful statements get mainstreamed. The net suffering of the world is increased, and for what? So some groups get to make evil jokes, and the targets have to take it on the chin? (So it goes.). A petty example? Perhaps. No less true for that. Shall we pick real hills where real people really died?

I was late to the earlier thread, so kind of responding to both OP and that right now:

It seems to me that the majority of posters only considered two basic courses of action – either submit or fight. Lots of people suggested variations of “fight” that were quite aggressive and were sure to cause damaged relationships no matter the resolution of the immediate issue. It was suggestions like these that drew “not the hill to die on” responses from more cautions and/or conflict-averse posters.

I submit that this misses the most powerful response, which we can semi-ironically refer to as “the Bartleby” – refuse without fighting. Simply say, “I am not comfortable with this, and I am not going to do it.” And then let the chips fall where they may.

What this does is it reverses the dynamic, and asks THEM if this is the hill that THEY want to die on. How important is this to them? What even is the purpose of the company? Are they prepared to actually fire a valuable employee just because they won’t put pronouns in an email signature?

I believe it’s likely that they haven’t seriously considered this possibility, or at least they haven’t considered the possibility absent the employee “going on the offensive” in a way that would present personnel problems making a firing an easy decision. A lot of people into SJ are deeply bubbled in a way where they literally can’t comprehend that anyone who isn’t an obvious moral monster has serious objections to their ideology. The idea that a normal, decent-seeming person could feel compelled to make a stand here doesn’t even enter into the equation, and I doubt it’s been seriously planned for. This is even more true for the non-CW-pilled who aren’t deeply invested and only see SJ as a collection of nice-seeming platitudes.

I think in a lot cases, if you’re legitimately a valuable employee, you’re going to come out ahead here. They are going to realize that their policy has unforeseen costs and reconsider. Of course it’s not 100%, so YMMV based on your own perception of your value, job security, and willingness to depart your current position. But it’s likely what I would do.