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:
Shedbuilder · 09/09/2021 09:09

It's a fashion statement. Is anyone doing a long-term study on a chart of people who are currently self IDing as trans? It would be really interesting to see what happens in 3 years, 5 years, 10 years.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/09/2021 09:05

Indeed. There is no definition because it is what the person wants it to be. Anything that isn't boring old "cis" man or woman.

Shedbuilder · 09/09/2021 09:04

Which, let us not forget, no one has offered a definition of.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/09/2021 09:00

What about people who use alternating pronouns, whose pronouns change every day, that you have to interpret via a series of coloured bracelets? All these fall under "non binary gender identity".

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/09/2021 08:59

Yes I know it's gender, not sex. Many people already believe it's illegal discrimination or harassment not to let MTF trans people use female facilities. This is not the actual law, but a series of guidances commissioned or funded whole or in part by the government have given this impression. "Non binary" gender identity being protected in law would create many more problems, because it would suggest that males who cross dress a couple of times a week (for whatever motivation) have the same legal protection as full time transsexuals. Which people (wrongly) interpret as needing to allow them access to the facilities of their choice, have their pronouns used by everyone etc etc.

At what point do you draw the line? What about neopronouns?

midgemagneto · 09/09/2021 08:50

No it doesn't

It's gender not sex

Single sex facilities not affected

The impact may be if an employer wants to add sex neutral facilities for none binary employees with sex issues

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/09/2021 08:50

If people are forced to do something ( eg not wear eyeliner if they are male) that's sex discrimination anyway

But yes I agree with this.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/09/2021 08:49

Does it really matter if it's protected now or not?

Yes I think it does on a theoretical level, if it creates an impression that employers need to let employees use whichever single sex facilities they feel like at the time, despite being obviously a member of their sex. It weakens the position for female only spaces further, which is why TRAs were so desperate to spin Jaguar Landrover as a test case.

midgemagneto · 09/09/2021 08:45

Does it really matter if it's protected now or not?

Solve problems but don't be nasty to people over trivialities

If people are forced to do something ( eg not wear eyeliner if they are male) that's sex discrimination anyway

Shedbuilder · 09/09/2021 08:25

@OhHolyJesus

Aside from the Jaguar tribunal the only other tenuously relevant case, which has gone to the high court and court of appeal is Christie Elan Kane and she (not using prefer pronouns because I don't know what they are) considers herself not non-binary but non-gendered.

I understand that Christie awaits the outcome of the latest attempt to have something other than M or F on U.K. passports

www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2020-0081.html

I'm just sharing this as a tangent, it's not remotely connected to the OP. Non binary still isn't defined in law.

So let's get this clear: not a single case of a non-binary person being protected in law despite all the assertions to the contrary by the trans-advocates on this thread.

Are the people on here who keep telling us that non-binary is a protected category stupid, or lying, or do they think we're stupid?

toomanytrees · 09/09/2021 03:59

@MissTrip82. Why do you assume conservative clients would be sexist/racist/homophobic? These days its more likely to be left wing clients.

FortunesFave · 09/09/2021 01:43

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"

MissTrip82 · 09/09/2021 01:25

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?

mantlepiece · 09/09/2021 01:20

Honestly, I would be looking for new employment ASAP.

Reading about the dynamic involved leads me to believe this situation won’t end well for you.

Dammed if you do, dammed if you don’t.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/09/2021 00:06

You appear to know a lot about this issue. Can you point us to the other cases apart from the Jaguar one? I'd be interested to know which cases you refer to. Thanks.

Yes please.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/09/2021 00:05

Shedbuilder, the relevant cases have already been mentioned in this thread.

And this has been addressed. RTFT.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/09/2021 00:04

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.

They weren't "non binary/genderfluid" as people understand it though, they were a bog standard MTF trans person. Employment tribunals at this level aren't binding as a precedent, as many people pointed out after Forstater 1. Read the Legal Feminist blog I quoted which makes both these points.

EmbarrassingMama · 08/09/2021 22:48

There’s no way I’d share a hotel room with a colleague! Currently unable to focus on anything else here due to that batshit position.

OhHolyJesus · 08/09/2021 22:37

Aside from the Jaguar tribunal the only other tenuously relevant case, which has gone to the high court and court of appeal is Christie Elan Kane and she (not using prefer pronouns because I don't know what they are) considers herself not non-binary but non-gendered.

I understand that Christie awaits the outcome of the latest attempt to have something other than M or F on U.K. passports

www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2020-0081.html

I'm just sharing this as a tangent, it's not remotely connected to the OP. Non binary still isn't defined in law.

Cam001 · 08/09/2021 22:30

@Summerfun54321

I think you should be honest with Kimye that you don’t have experience of staff transitioning but you’re there to support her and are prepared to escalate any issues that may arise that you don’t feel 100% confident in managing. She needs to feel supported for her sake and for your sake.
This employee has declared themself to be non-binary (whatever that means), so why are you referring to them as she?

As an aside I think I'm non binary too as I don't wear dresses, heels or paint my nails.

BlueberryCheezecake · 08/09/2021 22:28

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.

EarringsandLipstick · 08/09/2021 22:23

So what have Kimye's direct boss and their boss been doing meanwhile? Are they actually having any problems on the ground with Kimye's identity, presentation, behaviour, or is this all entirely still in the realm of the hypothetical?

Exactly.

OP you keep emphasising how senior you are. Honestly, I'd hate to be reporting to you based on what you have put here. The drama, caps and !!! You haven't explained if there's actually an issue, and if so, what.

BlueberryCheezecake · 08/09/2021 22:20

@SoManyQuestionsHere

For the record, by the way: I'm not "Kimye's" direct line manager.

Technically, I'm the boss of Kimye's boss' direct superior.

So much for "how well big corporations support their employees in translating their well-intentioned policies into hands-on advice". This never even should have landed on my desk because the buck should have stopped two levels of seniority below me. IF we got actually useful guidance, that is!

So what have Kimye's direct boss and their boss been doing meanwhile? Are they actually having any problems on the ground with Kimye's identity, presentation, behaviour, or is this all entirely still in the realm of the hypothetical?

As someone who has experience of being a visible minority in a customer facing role, I'm also wondering if the conservative clients have met Kimye yet? Is your example of needing to tone down the eyeliner an actual complaint you've received or is it just one you think you might receive? The reason I ask is my experience is it's often hard to predict who is or isn't going to have a problem with you. Have you considered the possibility your conservative clients might be more savvy with the modern world than you think and have no problem with Kimye? Or at least not be so bothered they withdraw their business?

FlyingOink makes a good point above that if Kimye's very existence is being made into a problem/crisis behind the scenes that could be seen as discrimatory. And honestly from the tone of your posts it does sound like you're having a general flap rather than actually having specific real problems arising. I understand wanting to know what to do in "what if" scenarios but if you're making an employee into a problem when they're not being one, that's not fair on them, and it's a waste of time for you.

Shedbuilder · 08/09/2021 22:11

@BlueberryCheezecake

Shedbuilder, the relevant cases have already been mentioned in this thread. Legal cases set precedent - anyone confidently stating non-binary people don't have a protected characteristic when it's been established in court that they do is not someone OP wants to be taking advice from unless she enjoys being sued.
Which cases are those? I've had a quick look through but can't see what you're referring to. The Jaguar one didn't set a legal precedent because it was only an employment tribunal, so doesn't change any laws. 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. As far as I'm aware, non-binary has consistently failed to make it to the statute books because, as demonstrated here, even people who are enthusiastic supporters of the concept of non-binary are unable to say exactly what 'non-binary' means.

A quick cop and paste would help me understand what you're talking about. Two minutes. That's all I'm asking.

Shedbuilder · 08/09/2021 22:04

[quote suggestionsplease1]@Shedbuilder you said you had been "asked to leave the women's loos on occasion and it hasn't been an issue for me". You are implying this is an acceptable thing to happen.

It is not acceptable. In such a scenario you are saying that it is fine for a woman to be asked to leave the women's toilets for looking like a man, and your logic also holds that they should be asked by men to leave the men's toilets because they are not a man.

Your application of logic has left you with an individual who now has no facilities to use (and no, they shouldn't have to use accessible toilets, nor do all venues have such provision.) Well done.[/quote]
No, I have sometimes been mistaken for a man by a woman walking into the loo and have been asked to use the mens. And when I turn round and smile and say 'Actually, I'm female' we end up laughing because as soon as they take a second look and hear my voice, they realise I'm a woman. This situation is something that more butch lesbians have always faced. It's not something to get upset about if you respect women's rights to protect themselves.

We have women's toilets for females only and I support women's rights to privacy and dignity. I also support men's rights to privacy and dignity in the male loos too. Women have every right to question a situation where they should reasonably be able to expect a women-only space and instead encounter someone who, at a quick glance, looks like a man. I would rather be challenged a hundred times than have women silently and fearfully accepting a man in their midst.

I reckon that if any women have ever actively chased a person out of a public lavatory then they'll have very good reason for doing so. I don't think it's my logic that's the problem.