Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Help! Employee is Transitioning!

169 replies

SoManyQuestionsHere · 08/09/2021 16:30

Reasonably new user name here, so: no NC - but please be understanding about me still having to keep this sort of vague. Also, full transparency, I'm asking around elsewhere, too, to hopefully get an opposite view point.

My employee is, apparently, non-binary and is looking to make some bold, public moves!

Hired in as "male, with a clearly male name and a physical appearance that, while clearly leaning towards androgyny, reads 'definitely male'".

Currently changing name (previously: "George" - obviously NOT the actual name) to something rather more neutral and unusual, along the lines of "Kimye" (equally obviously also not the real name - but: it's not obviously gendered and comes with, sorry - not meaning to sound prejudiced here, I'm genuinely trying to be as pragmatic as humanly possible - connotations that the general public would interpret as "most likely seen on Jeremy Kyle" as well as "they/them" pronouns).

I'm in professional services. A.k.a. "industry that has employees face clients directly". I'm also responsible for a client known for their pretty conservative social values (as a benchmark: earning their respect as a female executive has been an uphill battle for me!). And our employer is, basically, whatever Stonewall's board considers an "ideal case".

Genuinely out of my depth, here!

How would you approach? Given that a) I'm personally a GC but hardly radical (doesn't really matter, I'm a pro and my opinions come last!), that b) I do want to support my employees and don't, personally, see a major problem with "Kimye" doing their thing, internally, c) have a job, which boils down to "make money" and hence necessitates "do not alienate clients" (who WILL feel alienated!), and d) have woman employees whom I cherish, wish to retain and most definitely do not want to ask to share a hotel room with "Kimye" on the grounds that it's one of their more feminine leaning days unless they're 100% cool with it?

Yes, I've asked HR. Apparently, our best official guidance boils down to "play it by ear - we trust our executives!".

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
AtLeastPretendToCare · 10/09/2021 13:30

I get where you’re coming from OP, I do. I use a lot of professional services.

Unless your clients are very rough and ready even if they find the Kimye set up very uncomfortable for them, and I can see how that could be so, I doubt they will expressly tag it as so. However that doesn’t mean they won’t either ask for other resourcing (“I would be keen to have a broader bench of juniors available”), express concerns about Kimye’s performance (“didn’t think Kimye really listened to me”) or possibly (if each matter is small) start directing them elsewhere.

So my one piece of advice is this - be VERY careful what you put in email. If any concerns are raised re K’s performance/staffing etc even if not tagged as concerning gender/presentation just bear in mind your emails could get disclosed under subject access requests if K feels K has been treated badly and it must be due to gender issues.

Perversely if you do have any conversations keep your own contemporaneous handwritten notes so you can defend yourself later if needs be.

EarringsandLipstick · 10/09/2021 09:08

why should someone be allowed to shove their beliefs in your face

Where is there any evidence that this is the case?

What a horrible post. There are complex challenging issues regarding 'gender identity' and related matters, for sure.

In this case, no accommodations are being asked or required, beyond a name change. It's really not an issue.

OP has been overly dramatic without saying what the actual issues are, if any.

midgemagneto · 10/09/2021 08:03

The current set up is that the none binary has not asked for much beyond a different name . We cope with that all the time

That's hardly forcing beliefs

And not changing behaviour is the suggestion here,

Why should anyone care if z man wears what women are expected to wear any more than they care if a woman wears what a men is expected to wear? That's a full on GC attitude that is required. One that says outward expression of personality should not be constrained by sex

Yes, it could go further , they could demand different treatment, the could demand to override current sex based adjustments . But they haven't ( yet anyway )

LaetitiaASD · 09/09/2021 22:19

@MajorCarolDanvers

a) your personal views are not relevant just treat your employee with respect and keep your personal opinions to yourself. b) that is great that you want to support your employees c) what would you do if a client had a personal issue with any employee - if they didn't like women, old people, young people, black people, gay people? Handle it the same way you do in these situations. d) its ridiculous to expect any employee to share a room - cherished or not
Why is the non-binary employee allowed to push their beliefs and politics? Why are they allowed to demand others change the way they treat this person based on a completed unproveable statement that asserts that they believe something?

Would it be reasonable for me to assert religious privileges based on my new religion I announce one day and give no evidence to suggest I really believe in?

But mostly, why should someone be allowed to shove their beliefs in your face and your not even allowed to say that you will respect them but it's hard because you think their alleged beliefs are insane and bigoted?

TractorAndHeadphones · 09/09/2021 21:14

@MissTrip82

I just can’t grasp what it is that you want from HR. What guidance? What are your specific questions? If your question is about ‘conservative’ clients, what has been your approach when they’ve been sexist/racist/homophobic? Will that approach serve in this instance?
They might not have been before - hence why OP is asking. For them being sexist there’s already a clear precedent as she said it’s been hard to gain their respect. Strangely she hasn’t replied to any questions on this..
Datun · 09/09/2021 20:22

@midgemagneto

I think you quoted me and I tried to apologise ... I had lost the line of discussion /plot but then had fat finger issues so wrote gibberish ....
🤣
Fitt · 09/09/2021 20:14

HR can't advise because they can only react when things get out of control. OP is anticipating that things may get out of control. In this situation all you can do is carry on as normal and react reasonably.

If something happens that causes conflict, which is currently unpredictable, then OP is being trusted to use judgement, which is an expectation when you take home the big bucks.

It's just indicative of the evidence before our eyes that identity when brought into the workplace can be unpredictable.

midgemagneto · 09/09/2021 20:00

I think you quoted me and I tried to apologise ... I had lost the line of discussion /plot but then had fat finger issues so wrote gibberish ....

Datun · 09/09/2021 18:39

I would comment, as I'm name checked midgemagneto, but I'm not quite sure what that means!

midgemagneto · 09/09/2021 17:15

I get lost everyone and then datun 😀

Cailleach1 · 09/09/2021 17:13

@FortunesFave

Kimye should be given their own hotel room and you can play it as "We want Kimye to feel comfortable no matter how they're presenting that day"
If I saw someone getting benefit from a thing you declare yourself as, without the need for evidence, then I'd be having a gander at how I want to self id for a slice of that. I'm not in a situation where it affects me now. If I was younger, I'd be bookmarking my own reason for special treatment.

Especially since everyone will be prioritised ahead, and probably at the expense of women.

How would you treat a 'Kinggendered' person, op? I'll be having the Royal Suite for myself on any work sorties, thanking you. I'l act very professionally in my (cubic zirconia) diamond tiara crown, honest.

Datun · 09/09/2021 17:05

@midgemagneto

There is no evidence at all in this case that any rights conflict

The person has not asked to override single sex exceptions

The Jaguar case may possibly have been avoided if there hadn't been a culture of bullying

No. I was talking more about when they do. You have to have a legal framework for that.
Anycolourwilldo · 09/09/2021 15:42

I don't really get your issue here.

Members of staff shouldn't be sharing hotel rooms.

Treat your colleague with respect and be professional.

Your clients will likely give less of a f**k than you think.

anaily · 09/09/2021 14:24

The right to not be discriminated against is not in conflict. How does a non binary employee affect any other employees rights to not be discriminated against? Sharing office space and facilities with non binary employees doesn't mean you've been discriminated against.

midgemagneto · 09/09/2021 14:15

There is no evidence at all in this case that any rights conflict

The person has not asked to override single sex exceptions

The Jaguar case may possibly have been avoided if there hadn't been a culture of bullying

Datun · 09/09/2021 13:52

You can't make it about human decency when rights conflict. Who are you going to choose to be decent to? There has to be a framework.

Shedbuilder · 09/09/2021 13:44

@midgemagneto

Totally failing to understand relevance of case to the OP who didn't come across as wanting to bully or exclude the person In question but I thought wanted to know what implications might be and how to handle them

?

I don't really think it should be about the law ( except in clarifying perhaps what is a reasonable adjustment ) but what is human decency , how we would each like to be treated if some aspect of our character didn't fit the norm

I really think it should be all about the law.

Another trans advocate posts misinformation and you say well, what does any of it matter? Now you're saying the law doesn't matter.

It does, and women are going to reclaim their rights via the law. That's why you wish the law didn't matter.

OperationDessertStorm · 09/09/2021 12:54

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

midgemagneto · 09/09/2021 12:36

Totally failing to understand relevance of case to the OP who didn't come across as wanting to bully or exclude the person In question but I thought wanted to know what implications might be and how to handle them

?

I don't really think it should be about the law ( except in clarifying perhaps what is a reasonable adjustment ) but what is human decency , how we would each like to be treated if some aspect of our character didn't fit the norm

Datun · 09/09/2021 12:34

Blueberry, your own link says "As a result, whilst Tribunal decisions of first instance (such as this case) are not binding on other tribunals we can expect to see a rise in claims from those claimants who identify outside of traditional binary genders."

And people wonder why the OP is asking for advice!

BlueberryCheezecake · 09/09/2021 12:25

The Law Society Gazette on Taylor vs Jaguar - makes it clear the claimant's identity was recognised as non-binary not mtf, that their non-binary identity was judged to fall under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, and that the case sets a precedent for employers www.lawgazette.co.uk/legal-updates/non-binary/gender-fluid-claimants/5105968.article

Datun · 09/09/2021 11:54

I would imagine that the reason why the OP is worried is because the entire issue of gender identity is fraught. With, among other things, misunderstanding, opaqueness in law, and threats, veiled or overt.

This very thread is a prime example. People claiming that an employment tribunal has set a legal precedent for a gender identity that has no legal, official, or even universally agreed definition. Along with warnings of potential discrimination.

Personally, OP, I imagine the only thing required at the moment would be to refer to the person as they.

But I don't blame you at all for trying to get ahead of the situation to be prepared, eg should the person change from non-binary to transgender. Or to claim, like some have on this thread, that there is a legal definition to be addressed.

I would just refer to them as they, and if it goes any further and enters the realm of uncertainty, feed it back up the food chain as per that excellent comment above.

wellbehavedwomen · 09/09/2021 11:11

@BlueberryCheezecake

*And anyway the individual concerned was deemed to have started transitioning from MtF, so wasn't non-binary but undergoing gender reassignment, which was why they were covered by the Equality Act*

No, this is completely incorrect, the individual was explicitly recognised as being non-binary/genderfluid by the court and it was concluded that the protected characteristic extended to them nonetheless. You're also completely wrong to state employment tribunals don't set legal precedents.

First Tier Tribunals set no precedents whatsoever. That's so basic it's at the first term of first year of undergrad degree type level understanding.
BlueberryCheezecake · 09/09/2021 09:27

@MissTrip82

I just can’t grasp what it is that you want from HR. What guidance? What are your specific questions? If your question is about ‘conservative’ clients, what has been your approach when they’ve been sexist/racist/homophobic? Will that approach serve in this instance?
This. I'm wondering if OP hasn't gotten specific guidance from HR because she's not actually had any specific questions. If you go to HR and just say "Help help I have a non-binary employee and I don't know what to do about it" what exactly do you expect back from them? There's no specific issue or problem there they can advise on. No wonder OP is basically being told to just get on with it. She seems desperate to find problems where there aren't any.
Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/09/2021 09:13

It would, but I doubt such a study would be easy to do, or have the backing of any research institution!