I have an academic conference coming up, and on the registration site we are instructed to optionally enter a personal gender pronoun (PGP) to appear on our name tags. To enter it or not to enter it?
My personal view is the following: if someone does include a PGP on their tag, then I understand that they'd like me to know something about their identity in order to respectfully converse with/about them. In the case that that person does use an non-standard pronoun (if that's the right terminology), then this offers them what is already privileged to those whose gender is aligned with societal assumptions (e.g. a white male who identifies as a man and uses the PGP "he/his", like me) to not have to make their identity a point of conversation at the outset of any interaction. So, I respect and appreciate that the organizing committee is being progressive and inclusive in this sense.
As for myself, I don't have any desire to include my PGP on the name tag. I simply don't have a very strong sense of identity, and don't think of the self in those terms. I realize that there is a painfully obvious response to this; I don't have to worry about it because I already conform to societal assumptions about gender anyway. I have the privilege of knowing that no one is going to call me "she" by accident. But, if I ask myself if I would strongly object if someone did... I dunno, I suppose I'd prefer that didn't happen.
We can look at another dimension of identity, ethnicity, to try and isolate exactly what I'm saying. I'm Italian, which means I have dark skin and hair. Fairly often in life I've encountered people who make the false assumption that I'm actually Mexican or middle eastern. I may correct them if it was appropriate to do so, but really I've never been offended or uncomfortable by it; I simply don't care enough about identity. If there was an optional field for filling in your ethnicity on a conference nametag, I wouldn't have any desire to complete that either, even though I do know that mine is often mistaken.
A potential flaw with this analogy is that gender is ubiquitous in conversation. The same is not true of ethnicity necessarily. Still, all I mean is that I don't feel compelled to broadcast anything about my identity as a pretext to interaction. If someone wants to learn about who I am, they can speak to me. It wouldn't make me more comfortable to walk around knowing that information about my identity can be obtained on sight (be it gender or anything else).
I do not want to be misunderstood as attempting to assert my beliefs onto others. Even though I don't put strong value in identity, I'm not saying that identity is objectively not valuable; I respect that to some people identity is of enormous value, and I appreciate that those people put their PGP on their name tag so that I can treat them the way they'd like to be treated.
Now, my real question is not necessarily about the agreeableness of the position I've described above (though I'm happy to discuss it). Rather, I'd like to ask if the act of omitting the PGP from the name tag itself, even if well motivated/justified, is inadvertently signaling any disrespect. At the last one of these conferences, the vast majority of people did include the PGP. Now, I don't feel compelled to conform for conformity's sake, but I also don't want to give the false impression that I'm a proponent of gender binarism.