When I Don’t Believe in It: Do I Still Have to Use Their Pronouns?
“I’m a senior executive at a private company. One of our employees recently asked to be called by a new name and by they/them pronouns. To be honest, I don’t believe in this. I think gender is a biological fact, and I’ve always believed in treating people respectfully—but this feels like it crosses a line. I’m not hostile or trying to cause conflict, I just feel like I’m being asked to say something I don’t believe. Do I have to comply? And even if I don’t legally have to—what’s the right thing to do here?”
Dear Anonymous,
Let’s start with what I won’t do. I’m not going to walk you through federal protections or legal precedents. If you’re looking for the compliance answer, your company’s legal team is the right place to start. They’ll tell you whether this is optional, whether it’s protected under law, and what the liability exposure might be if you don’t adapt. They’ll give you the boundaries.
What I can offer you is something different: the psychological terrain you’re standing in. The part that doesn’t show up in policies but absolutely shapes behavior, morale, and culture.
You’re not the first person to feel conflicted about this. The language of identity is evolving quickly, and it’s bringing us face-to-face with something many leaders aren’t used to confronting: the limits of their own worldview inside a shared environment. You were taught to believe certain things about gender, probably reinforced by biology textbooks and cultural norms. And now someone is standing in front of you asking you to believe something else—something that, to you, doesn’t seem rooted in what’s real. That can feel disorienting. Even threatening.
But here’s the thing: you’re not being asked to change what you believe. You’re being asked to behave in a way that communicates respect.
That’s a distinction that matters. Belief is internal. Behavior is external. And in professional settings, it’s behavior—not belief—that defines whether someone feels safe, valued, and able to function.
Using someone’s chosen name and pronouns is not about validating a belief system. It’s about signaling that this person has a right to participate in the workplace without being constantly diminished. It's about affirming that their experience of themselves—whatever you make of it—is valid enough to be acknowledged out loud.
Psychologically, name and pronoun use isn’t about language—it’s about identity recognition. Humans are fundamentally social beings. Our sense of self is shaped in part by how others see and reflect us. When someone asks to be called a name or pronoun that aligns with their internal experience, they’re not asking for special treatment. They’re asking not to be erased.
And when you, as a leader, resist that request—not out of accident, but by principle—you’re communicating something much larger than disagreement. You’re communicating hierarchy. You’re communicating that your interpretation of them matters more than their own. That your discomfort outweighs their dignity.
Even if you don’t mean to, even if you believe you're acting from personal integrity, the psychological impact is the same: it creates emotional friction every time they hear their name or identity denied. It reminds them they are other. It asks them to do their job while absorbing a steady drip of invalidation.
You don’t have to understand someone’s identity fully to respect it. You don’t need to agree with the concept of nonbinary gender to say “they” instead of “she.” You’ve done this before in other ways—whether it’s calling someone by a nickname you wouldn’t have chosen, addressing someone as “Doctor” even if you think titles are silly, or referring to someone’s spouse as “they” when you don’t know the gender. You’ve already demonstrated that language isn’t always about personal conviction—it’s about shared understanding.
The real question is: why does this feel different? Why does this one—this request for a different pronoun—feel like a threat to your sense of truth?
That’s where things get interesting. Because when we dig a little deeper, what often comes up isn’t biology. It’s control. The discomfort tends to come not just from the idea itself, but from the perceived loss of authority. You’re being asked to adjust how you speak, how you refer to someone, how you think about gender altogether—and for many people in positions of leadership, that adjustment feels like giving up ground.
But that’s not what’s happening here. No one’s asking you to surrender your worldview. They’re asking you to make enough room in it for someone else’s. That’s not dilution. That’s maturity.
If you’re concerned about honesty, here’s the honest truth: not using someone’s correct name or pronouns doesn’t make you more principled. It just makes you harder to trust. Because people can feel the difference between principled discomfort and passive resistance. They can tell when a leader is struggling to adapt versus actively refusing to.
Psychologically speaking, respect is measurable in action. You can disagree with someone’s choices and still respect their autonomy. You can feel unsure about the direction of social change and still lead with emotional intelligence. You can find something unfamiliar and still choose not to humiliate, diminish, or resist it out of pride.
So if you’re still asking whether you have to do this, I’ll put it plainly: You have to decide what kind of leader you want to be. Do you want to be the kind who requires agreement before offering respect? Or do you want to be the kind who recognizes that psychological safety—especially in today’s workforce—often begins with letting people be seen as they are?
Because this isn’t about political correctness. It’s about psychological coherence. When people are asked to participate in a workplace that reflects everything but their reality, they fragment. They detach. They protect themselves. And when that happens, performance drops, engagement disappears, and turnover climbs. Not because people are “too sensitive,” but because people don’t do their best work in places that feel psychologically unsafe.
What you choose to call someone at work doesn’t change the nature of reality. But it absolutely changes the emotional climate. And as a leader, you don’t get to control how people identify—but you do get to choose how your behavior impacts the culture.
So no, I’m not going to tell you what to believe. That’s not my job.
But I am telling you this: in shared spaces, we honor each other through behavior, not belief. You don’t have to feel it in your bones to say it out loud. You just have to care enough to make room for someone else’s experience to exist alongside your own.
That’s what respect actually means. And in a workplace that wants to thrive, it’s not optional.
- RJ