Pronouns

Self ID isn't the law so can't trump the law, even if its written into your contract.
My understanding is that if you had a condition which means you see people as male or female and so cannot remember the ''correct'' pronouns as a result, you'd have to bring a case of discrimination based on a disability.

Facts and ingrained habit aren't a disability so you'd have to fight for them as a belief. I think you'd end up creating a test case and in the current climate you'd probably lose.

That would affect everyone who is in the same position as you in the future, so the rule is you don't create a test case until you have a watertight case.

My advice would be to pick your battles and look elsewhere. It's not uncommon for an employer to want to get rid of a loose cannon and use a different reason to the real problem.
Don't be the loose cannon.

I think Ally is a Lawyer in the field OP.

She isn’t giving a personal opinion I don’t think.

This! Ally is giving you free legal advice with expertise, Pratchet, not arguing against you!

I think Ally is a Lawyer in the field OP.

She isn’t giving a personal opinion I don’t think.

I would say it's matter of following your employer's policy. You follow the policy or you expect to get into disciplinary proceedings. At those disciplinary proceedings you may raise the question of whether the policy discriminates against you as one who does not share the belief that you have, and can change, a separate gender ID.

Ally: I do hope you were happy with the explanation of why sex is a more heavily protected characteristic than being trans.

I missed that post but have looked at it now and don't agree. There are specific exceptions carved out for sex (eg all women's shortlist's, which for info would allow men who have a GRC and are therefore legally considered to be women to stand) but those exemptions are very specific and not relevant to this situation. They do not create a general hierarchy which applies outside of those specific exemptions.

You are 'just' using the language that you are your ilk told the Courts and Tribubals to use #weseeyou

I've only done defence and have actually fought against allegations of discrimination from trans people. So I'm definitely not trying to get the Courts to use 'pro trans' language.

I'm just letting you know the legal position. You are free to martyr yourself if you want but you should be aware of the consequences before doing so.

Would Pratchett have a better case for objecting to “cis” being used of her?

This is why the GRA needs repealing and replacing with something else.

Pronouns reflect the speaker's perception of the subject, not the subject's perception of themself. Compelling a person to lie about what they correctly perceive is territory the law should never have entered.

We have the situation now where an actual provable lie has been made a protected characteristic.
And where forcing others to collude in the lie has become legally compulsory.
And where refusing to lie has become harassment.

It's like making creationism a protected characteristic and prosecuting those who refer to evolution.

It's pretty much a blasphemy law in all but name.

No, it's not misgendering, it's correctly sexing. You are trying to make it illegal to tell the truth. How awful of you.

I am just using the language that the Courts and Tribunals use. I don't even believe in gender.

A slightly different analogy here, but how do Quakers get on with their conscientious objections to using titles? They fundamentally believe that everyone is equal before god, and the use of titles diminishes everyone's worth. If they, say, work in the charitable sector, I'm sure they work alongside clergy, academics and aristocracy where use of titles is expected, how is that received by outsiders?

It's like the emic/etic thing in anthropology and insider/outsider perspectives respectively. Women are being defined by the "outsider" class (law of misogyny that women are whatever men say they are). Men are driving the narrative that pronouns and gender identity can be self declared (rather than laid down at conception). Women's emic perspectives have become contentious in the clash between sex and gender.

what if, say someone autistic, who sees the person as their birthsex... and struggles to remember the pronouns that the trans person has requested... two protected characteristics...

That would be interesting, but at the end of the day it would be accidental misgendering so quite different to any conflict between gender critical feminists and trans people.

Given that this would be deliberate misgendering it is more akin to the case of the Christian registrar (protected characteristic: religion) who did not want to marry gay couples (protected characteristic: sexual orientation). The registrar lost that case.

here's another thought:

what if, say someone autistic, who sees the person as their birthsex... and struggles to remember the pronouns that the trans person has requested... two protected characteristics...

going on cakes and christian business owners, not a fucking chance in hell.

I've taught trans teenagers. One of them was kicked out of their home because of their transition. That's abuse. IMO.

Just use their name.

I'm pretty sure that in the recent Primark case, the transgender employee kept a diary of all cases of perceived transphobia, and naturally these included all deliberate as well as accidental 'misgenderings', referring to as a man, etc.

I can't be bothered to look it up, but this could for sure be used.

You would be on a hiding to nothing trying to argue that using female pronouns demeans your sex or whatever.