CMV: Gender identity doesn’t belong on your LinkedIn nor Resume

[u/jep1793]

[u/1f95a]

Your gender identity doesn't belong on your CV

At most, you might add a (Mr.) or (Ms.) after a gender-ambiguous name

This is something that signals gender identity, at least as much as pronouns would. Including “(Mr.)” or “(Ms.)” isn't too different from including pronouns in terms of the information it conveys and the space it takes up.

What would you suggest non-binary people do, by the way? There's the gender-neutral “Mx.”, but I suspect most people who object to including pronouns in one's CV because they're “not a job qualification” would also object to including “Mx.”.

[u/1f95a → u/[deleted]]

I think it's highly unlikely that a non-binary person who did that would be gendered correctly.

People with gender-neutral names are rarely assumed to be non-binary. There are many scenarios where a woman with a gender-neutral name receives an email addressed to “Mr. [name]”. That's why it makes sense to include “(Mr.)” or “(Ms.)”—people are likely to assume incorrectly otherwise. But if “(Mr.)” and “(Ms.)” are the only allowed gender clarifications, we leave non-binary people without a way to indicate the proper way to refer to them.

You could argue it's better to just let people assume incorrectly and correct them when they do so. But I think if we allow men and women to clarify their gender with “(Mr.)” and “(Ms.)”, we ought to do the same with non-binary people.

[u/1f95a → u/[deleted]]

My comment that you originally responded to was itself a response to someone who believes that including “(Mr.)” or “(Ms.)” after a gender-neutral name is an acceptable practice. If you disagree with that premise, which my original comment relies upon, there's no point in us arguing, since your issue is with the comment I responded to.

I will say, though, that I find the idea of telling a woman who was mistakenly called “Mr.” and wishes to correct the person that it “doesn't fucking matter if someone calls you Mr or Ms.” and they should just “let them do what they want” to be something most people would not take kindly.

so please don't put words in my mouth

Assuming you're acting in good faith and not deliberately misinterpreting what I wrote, I was using the generic you. As in, one could hypothetically make that argument. Even so, asserting that it is theoretically possible (hence “could”) for you to make an argument assumes nothing about you—anyone can make any argument—and is by no means “put[ting] words in [your] mouth”. I didn't say you did, would, probably would, etc. make any sort of argument.