Now federal employees can't even use pronouns in their emails.

Think it is important for people to remove all pronouns from documents. Without, people will be more free to interpret what these messages mean to. This type of malicious compliance will only go so far, sadly.

Comment used it, these, and this. Please remove offensive pronouns, children may be present and children must not learn the english language
- children must not learn the english language
  Reminds me of...
  The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought—that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc—should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever. To give a single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as “This dog is free from lice” or “This field is free from weeds.” It could not be used in its old sense of “politically free” or “intellectually free” since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless. Quite apart from the suppression of definitely heretical words, reduction of vocabulary was regarded as an end in itself, and no word that could be dispensed with was allowed to survive. Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum.
- Hugely pedantic here, but only “it” is a pronoun there (specifically an anticipatory subject, a kind of expletive pronoun), the others are adjectives.
They should replace all pronouns with [redacted].

This is just begging for malicious compliance.

You want to eliminate an entire part of speech? Then good luck trying to understand what the fuck my email is trying to say.

In the article it specifies you to remove pronouns from your email signature. Definitely less fertile ground for malicious compliance, but it's still doable.
- End every email body with "For your response, I am referred to using (feminine/masculine/any/whatever) pronouns"
Does the reader want to eliminate an entire part of speech? Then good luck trying to understand what the fuck the writer’s email is trying to say.
Could be fun. I bet ChatGPT could automate it.
- DeepSeek can automate it
- Does the reader want to eliminate an entire part of speech?
  Which one are they going to outlaw next? Verbs? Or Adjectives?
- Exactly... Maybe have a boilerplate disclaimer at the top of each email that does include pronouns, just explaining that the following email has had all pronouns removed so as to comply with the new rule.
You
FUCKING PRONOUNCE turns red and screams

So is it alright to just assume trump is female? The email signature no longer states her preferred pronouns, so I think this is what she wants?

She did sign that executive order designating everyone as female, too.

I → (the) speaker/writer
you → (the) listener/reader, pl. (the) audience
they → that person, pl. those people

The writer believes that such an idea is quite stupid. In fact, the writer believes that the audience will find this language extremely obtuse. These methods will only cause more pain to the federal employees in question.

Don't forget pronouns like who, mine, and ours. In fact, here's a list of >100
Someone should write a script that completely replaces these with BS standins
I think we need a tool that automatically rewrites text to remove all pronouns, but I'm not even sure that is possible.

I guess Trump doesn't want to be referred to as He/Him

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-appears-accidentally-declared-every-174749266.html
Hmmm, I see...

How does this hold up against a first amendment test?

When "What Trump wants goes" is all the Supreme Meme Court cares about
- Well it's not a private entity hiring them, it's the actual govt. Usually the defense is that those are private companies and they can do what they want but that doesn't apply here
- Because their employer is the US Government. The very entity the 1st Amendment protects us from.
It'll never have to

Name is Alex/Jordan/Leslie
Not allowed to clarify gender

Wouldn’t the world be better off if no one knew each others gender? If you’re a cis man and find yourself attracted to another man? Congrats you’re gay now.

my new bio: (masculine neutral/masculine possessive)

my new bio: (masculine neutral/masculine possessive)
Isn’t it nominative/objective?
I don’t see “he/his” or “they/their,” I see “he/him” and “they/them.”
- I put all of them in, ie he/him/his... just to remove ambiguity.
  And pronouns remain in my sig. Ain't going anywhere.
- Probably! Been a long time since I’ve been to school.
but they banned mentioning gender, change it to (identifying with the societal archetype of the sex producing the small reproductive cell)

Hope you're not named Elle.

Trump's idol **inrich ***mler would be offended too!
Or He-Man

nul42 would stop using pronouns completely and just use genderless nouns or proper names instead.

emails

\sigh

shemails?

So, rather than make it.a choice, the Reich Wing is anti-choice. As typical.

Use of pronouns outlawed. Now they have to say “that person” or call them by their name.

Oh no what a shame

But why would a pronoun be in a signature? Something like Her Majesty, Patricia Jones, Dept. of Health?

So people know how you would like to be addressed.
- Referred to. People are never addressed by their pronouns.
Parker Smith
She/Her
Department of Defense Black Budget Coordinator
867-5309 ext. 1
Questions?

I work with military and the more conservative ones are bitch-made and demand to use the properly gendered honorific. Seeing CPT CUMBRAIN as the sign-off on an email doesn't let you know how to address them. Commissioned officers get called either sir or ma'am, and some will turn into cry baby bitches if you don't get it right. They love their pronouns.
- I mean... Those kinds of officers could do with being bothered every now and then. It's like with cats. If you let the officers go without shenanigans they get arrogant. I think the appropriate rate is something like 1 bothering per 6 months for every 20 specialists under them? That seems harsh but really good specialists can bother their entire chain of command in one go!
Trolling or stupid? Trolling...or stupid? I just can't tell anymore.
Wow, did you rub all 3 brain cells together to come up with that? Your mommy must be so proud.

It says email signatures.

And good; it's ridiculous, virtue-signalling bullshit and you've got to let it go.

It’s useful for people with unisex names like Taylor, Chris, or Jordan, especially in email, where you may not have any face-to-face contact.
- Or for people with names from cultures not associated with English naming standards such as Chinese or Indian cultures working in western companies or governments.
  Pop quiz anti-pronouners! 星辰 Xīng Chén, girl or boy? 美莉 Měi Lì, girl or boy?? Would you like to buy a pronoun now?
- Yes, that's a reasonable position.
You fuckers need to let your vice-signaling go. Funny how "freedom" to ignore pronouns quickly gives way to banning them. The only freedom you guys seem to care about is the freedom to be ignorant pieces of shit.
- Yeah, turns out reality is more nuanced than that.
And good; it’s ridiculous, virtue-signalling bullshit and you’ve got to let it go.
You're expressing a VERY strong negative reaction on words in an email signature. Why are you so threatened by what someone puts in their email signature? How does it challenge or change what you are that you've put so much thought into it to get this angry about it?
- Because it's very, very silly identity politics and the majority of people agree. You've got to let it go and focus on important things, like the insane and ever-increasing wealth inequality.
I'm been told that it is not just virtue-signaling (it is), but that it is also a virtue (allyship) in action. Normalizing sharing that information make it easier for people that have a more complex relationship with their gender than I do.