Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Pronouns

115 replies

Pratchet · 06/05/2018 07:52

How far will I get at work if I refuse use incorrect pronouns because it is discrimination to force me to support an ideology which is harmful to me? Serious question. Anybody who can help, that would be great.

Also, does anyone at all have an opinion on whether my stance would be strengthened by me saying that forcing me to use incorrect pronouns is disrespectful
A. To me as a woman or
B. To my identity as a woman

Looking for all views. (You're probably all gardening or at the beach while I'm at work refreshing my phone!)

OP posts:
Original poster
Pratchet · 06/05/2018 09:01

Thank you Tufty.

So I would have to prove that forcing me to use the wrong pronouns is unwanted conduct, and that it is humiliating.

I should say I'm talking self ID here. I would use 'they' for people with a GRC probably. I use 'he' when talking about Paris Lees, for example, if it comes up in conversation.

OP posts:
AllyMcBeagle · 06/05/2018 09:01

[Re EHRC guidance] that's not the law though is it? Or is it.

It's guidance which Courts/Tribunals are legally obliged to consider when deciding cases, and will almost certainly follow.

AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth · 06/05/2018 09:00

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

AllyMcBeagle · 06/05/2018 08:59

The main definition of harassment is as follows in case you are interested (there are a couple of additional definitions but I've left them out as not relevant):

(1) A person (A) harasses another (B) if—

(a) A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and

(b) the conduct has the purpose or effect of —

(i) violating B's dignity, or

(ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.

Original poster
Pratchet · 06/05/2018 08:59

Thanks disturbing : how extraordinary that framing it as a belief system rather than the actual truth would be better received.

OP posts:
Original poster
Pratchet · 06/05/2018 08:58

Thanks fallen: that's not the law though is it? Or is it.

OP posts:
DisturblinglyOrangeScrambleEgg · 06/05/2018 08:57

Disturbing: thanks for your response. The analogy is more like: refusing to call a layman a priest, or refusing to call somebody a professor, even though they aren't one.

Yes, definitely that's the real case.

I suppose I was looking for an equivalent kind of 'conscientious objector' status. I'm not Catholic, so I'll call him Mr. Brown, not Father Brown, I'm not Genderist, so I'll call that male person 'she', I'm a republican, so I won't call her Lady Diana, just Diana etc.

I feel like having a political position on it would make it more reasonable and defensible to those who are prone to kneejerk reactions to be nice/capitulate to demands

Original poster
Pratchet · 06/05/2018 08:57

Trans people are protected against negative discrimination (being sacked eg for how you present).

Sex is protected because positive discrimination is permitted as a proportionate remedy (to negative discrimination) : that is, for example, all women shortlists are allowed.

Of course, under the Equality Act, sex-segregated spaces are also allowed, enabling some spaces to exclude even those trans people with a Gender Recognition Certificate.

OP posts:
TheFallenMadonna · 06/05/2018 08:57

The Equality and Human Rights commission includes repeated use of non-preferred pronouns as an example of harassment under the Equality Act.

McTufty · 06/05/2018 08:56

Sorry, not being clear. The definition of harassment under the Equality Act requires:

  1. unwanted conduct, and
  2. for this conduct to have the purpose or effect of creating a hostile, humiliating, degrading or offensive environment.

So creating a humiliating environment isn’t enough - it has to be unwanted conduct that creates it if that makes sense.

busyboysmum · 06/05/2018 08:55

If I were in that situation I think I would just use their name and tbh if I were forced to use pronouns I wasn't comfortable with I would avoid speaking to or about the person in question. You also can't force people to employ people so I think as an employer I just would choose someone who was less likely to cause upset at work. Anyone who made a big fuss about pronouns at an interview would raise a red flag for me.

AllyMcBeagle · 06/05/2018 08:53

Women are more protected than trans under the Equality Act. Did you miss that the first time I said it.

I don't mean to be rude but I'm not sure what you mean by this? Sex and gender reassignment are both protected characteristics and there is no hierarchy. The only way in which sex is 'more protected' than gender reassignment is that there are certain exceptions in the Act which mean that eg single service providers can choose to exclude trans women from single sex services in certain limited circumstances. But none of those exceptions are relevant to this situation.

I speak as a lawyer with a lot of experience in Equality Act cases. I am not here to defend the law but I will explain it and I can say that my advice would be not to misgender this person as they could sue and don't think you could successfully defend yourself.

Original poster
Pratchet · 06/05/2018 08:52

Tufty: thanks. So it would have to be 'harassment' and not 'humiliating environment'? I would have thought it's easier to see how forcing women to use incorrect pronouns for a man is humiliating.

OP posts:
Original poster
Pratchet · 06/05/2018 08:50

Names don't signify sex, Ally. You can be a man and be called Ally, Brenda or Caitlin. There's no reason to have a problem with names.

Why should I practise? Why don't trans people practise not forcing people to use incorrect pronouns?

OP posts:
McTufty · 06/05/2018 08:50

Honestly OP no, I don’t think you would get very far.

For a start, harassment requires ‘unwanted conduct’ so a tribunal would have to be prepared to describe being trans and wanting to be referred to by a preferred pronoun as such, and I really can’t see that happening.

RaininSummer · 06/05/2018 08:48

I would avoid pronouns mainly I think if the person was a gloaty narcissistic tra type but if a decent person I would use their chosen pronoun to be respectful so long as it wasnt a made up one like ze etc. I think, depending on where you work, you would get in a lot of trouble.

Original poster
Pratchet · 06/05/2018 08:48

Sea horses: yyy. I'm considering it.

OP posts:
Original poster
Pratchet · 06/05/2018 08:47

Mctufty: but couldn't I argue it's a humiliating environment for me? Which it would be?

OP posts:
Original poster
Pratchet · 06/05/2018 08:46

Women are more protected than trans under the Equality Act. Did you miss that the first time I said it.

OP posts:
Original poster
Pratchet · 06/05/2018 08:45

Thanks assigned. Mermaids Helen?

OP posts:
McTufty · 06/05/2018 08:45

Legally speaking I think it could potentially be harassment, as it could create a humiliating environment for a trans woman to be referred to as “he” or vice versa.

Original poster
Pratchet · 06/05/2018 08:44

Disturbing: thanks for your response. The analogy is more like: refusing to call a layman a priest, or refusing to call somebody a professor, even though they aren't one.

OP posts:
SeahorsesAREhorses · 06/05/2018 08:43

It's the equivalent of being forced to call someone sir, or lord. I would retaliate and change my own pronouns to he but make no visible changes, point out how ridiculous the whole movement is.

AllyMcBeagle · 06/05/2018 08:43

What if it's colleagues only: not clients?

It doesn't matter. They are both protected under the Equality Act.

MargeH · 06/05/2018 08:41

Avoiding their usage might get easier with practice. Perhaps try it with non-trans colleagues at first and then none one should take offence; you could even come across as being really woke when in fact, you're being subversive Wink

I spent years avoiding calling my MIL 'Mum'.