Pronouns

Thanks Ally. There's advice on the BBC website that says the Human Rights Act protects trans' children's rights to use opposite sex bathrooms. So that isn't true?

Not in my opinion. There isn't anything specific about trans rights in the Human Rights Act (HRA). The HRA just contains fairly broad rights - eg right to life, right to vote, right to marry etc. The trans rights that have been inferred from those broad rights through case law (eg right to a GRC) tend to arise out of the right to privacy. To my knowledge there hasn't been any case law specifically on trans pupils rights under the HRA. Any rights that trans pupils have will currently just be governed by the Equality Act. The EHRC have interpreted the Equality Act as giving trans pupils the right to private changing rooms but importantly not the right to use the opposite sex's changing rooms. As above, IMO the same logic applies to bathrooms which are not completely private (it would probably be OK if the school just has single enclosed bathrooms, but cubicles should be kept single sex).

Is it this article?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-43462823
because what is said there seems to be based on the (IMO incorrect) guidance that Transpire are giving out.

If not, do you have a link?

I do wonder if forced recognition and deferrment to a mythical concept that contradicts one's personal beliefs (and reality) is grounds for a test case eventually.

If you don't believe in invisible internal gender then you should not be forced to refer to a third party's 'gender' in place of their objective sex.

Their sex is a matter of material fact.
Conventions in language acknowledge material sex.
Forcing use of words that imply the opposite sex is being perceived is so like punishable blasphemy.

Sorry that should have said:
more important to the trans person to have people use the pronouns which they want.

Thanks Ally. What I don't understand is why forcing me, a woman, to submit to using incorrect pronouns (self ID) is not harassment.

IMO if you wanted to argue harassment you'd do it on the basis of the protected characteristic of belief (ie as a gender critical feminist who believes it is impossible for people to change sex) rather than the protected characteristic of sex because you have to show that the unwanted behaviour relates to the protected characteristic. I think the difficulty that you'd face is showing that your employer is either A) violating your dignity or B) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for you, particularly given that you have the option of trying to avoid pronouns. I think even if you could make some kind of case out (which as I say I think would be difficult), my gut feeling is that the Court/Tribunal would say that it's worse for the trans person/more important to them to have people use the correct pronouns so in the end they wouldn't find in your favour.

Ally also: doesn't the single sex provision also apply to school toilets if the schools decide so?

It does. There was a recent case of that school in Essex where they are letting the trans pupil use the girls' bathroom. It seems that they received advice from a pro-trans organisation and IMO that advice was wrong. The EHRC guidance gives the example of changing rooms and suggests the pupil should change in a private room. IMO the same logic should apply to bathrooms (eg let the pupil use the staff toilet if that's in a room on its own). The problem that we face as feminists is it's not easy to stop schools and service providers etc when they don't choose to apply the exceptions.

There's no general provision in law saying that women are entitled to separate services where they are intimate in nature, and in fact we don't generally have a right to know if another user or provider of a service is trans. So as things stand you can have transwomen providing smear tests and the patient can't be asked if they are OK with this (even if they have specifically asked for a female nurse) because to do so would out the trans nurse.

Schools are interesting because they have a statutory duty to provide single sex bathrooms. We'll have to wait and see how this plays out.

Is this all hypothetical or do you actually work with a trans person?
Ally is a regular poster on here and those comments to her were pretty out of order I think.

Women do count. Not sure this legislation or guidance is saying there is 'womanbrain', but anyway.

I also find compelled speech deeply upsetting.

It is a forced lie. What about autistic people, my husband cannot lie, it causes distress, why should he be forced to confirm someones sexist religious beliefs?

The UK Equality and Human Rights Commission has advised in guidance that it is harassment:

Harassment is when someone makes you feel humiliated, offended or degraded because you are transsexual.

For example a transsexual woman is having a drink in a pub with friends. The landlord keeps calling her ‘Sir’ and ‘he’ when serving drinks, despite her complaining about it.
Harassment can never be justified. However, if an organisation or employer can show it did everything it could to prevent people who work for it from behaving like that, you will not be able to make a claim for harassment against it, although you could make a claim against the harasser.

As have the Parliamentary Women and Equalities Committee:

279.Further, under the Equality Act 2010, all organisations (including employers and public bodies, such as the NHS) must respect a trans person’s acquired / affirmed gender and any associated change of name. Failure to change pronouns, names and gender markers (including honorifics and pronouns) on records in respect of a trans person would (with a few exceptions)281 constitute unlawful direct discrimination under the Act.

Ally, I'm a little confused here but it seems I was unnecessarily arsey

No worries at all! I think sometimes when I explain the law it can come across as if I endorse it. I have said in other threads that the law would be different if I was in charge. You just deserve to know what you are letting yourself in for if you stick with the pronouns that match the person's sex rather than go along with the one's that match their gender (incidentally, I don't have a big problem with the term 'misgendering' because my position is that gender is a nonsense concept, but I always avoid the term 'cis' because that one does bother me).

Specific in the sense they allow positive discrimination as a proportionate remedy?

There's not a generic provision saying positive discrimination is OK. There are some very specific provisions saying basically 'If you do X, it won't be discriminatory against people with Y characteristic' - eg you can do all women's shortlist's without men being able to complain they are being discriminated against. The language about all women's shortlists in the Act is a bit hard to read if you don't have an in-depth knowledge of the structure of the Act, but here's the provision about single sex services:

28(1) A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to gender reassignment discrimination, only because of anything done in relation to a matter within sub-paragraph (2) if the conduct in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

(2) The matters are—

(a) the provision of separate services for persons of each sex;

(b) the provision of separate services differently for persons of each sex;

(c) the provision of a service only to persons of one sex.

So you can see that it's saying that whilst it would normally be discriminatory to treat transwomen with a GRC differently from women, if you're providing a single sex service and you've got a fair reason for excluding them (or in the fancy language of the Act it's 'a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim') then in that specific instance it doesn't count as discrimination.

In the same way, there are some specific exceptions which give special treatment to religious people, but they were no use to the registrar who didn't want to marry gay couples and ended up losing their job.

I agree @AllyMcBeagle was just trying to advise you as to the legal position. That's not necessarily their opinion lol

I think it would be hard for you to prove harassment just by someone asking you to use a different pro noun. Has this actually come up or is it hypothetical?
Someone asking you is fairly reasonable, someone forcing you is different!

Even so I'm not sure you have a case, and I have a law degree although work in a different field. Sex is a protected characteristic but you're not protected just by being a woman iyswim.

Anyone misgendering could get in trouble, man or woman. You're not being discriminated against because of your sex but because of your actions.

I'm not for self Id etc but I'm not sure your approach is right either.

What about 'genuine' trans people who have a grc and are just trying to quietly get on with their lives. Are you going to insist on embarrassing them repeatedly at work

Clinicalwaste I know, its insane. It seriously concerns me that people who make the law are so disconnected from everyday life that they cannot see the logical outcome of enforcing it.

I can only assume they've never looked after a child, or someone with a learning difficulty, or dementia.

UPSTART
So this is basically the biggest and most unenforceable law and waste of time in the history of legal process. If we can all change pronouns at will and it is harassment to misgender someone then how will we all in reality get on with life. I won’t be able to leave the house without getting a claim against me and my daughter will have a criminal record as long as her arm at the age of 11 by accident.
I know I am ranting now but seriously..........🤦🏽‍♀️

@Clinicalwaste Exactly, not being able to go along with a social lie because you are a child puts the courts in the position of having to decide a 'date of consent' or something after which pronouns become legally enforceable.

This is going to force court cases to decide degrees of 'impairment' for 'conditions' such as autism, or dementia. Or as yet undiagnosed brain 'conditions.'
Which takes us into National Socialist territory.

This is a really interesting thread. If we take the legal advice to use correct pronouns then older people and very young children or those who are unaware that the, fully presenting as a man, person in front of them is identifying as a woman that day, are all going to be guilty of harassment by calling him a him. This is bonkers and unfair. We cannot expect older people with dementia, young kids, those with learning difficulties to know whether someone is identifying as a different sex that day. If I accidentally or not misgender someone at work then if they bring a claim I could surely go to court and say that I have decided to identify as a man and they had also done exactly the same to me by referring to me as she thereby harassing me.