Need help to stop my organisation compelling us to use preferred pronouns!

This would not be my reading. Forstater was clear that she would normally use courtesy pronouns. The court was also clear that a failure to do so without good cause could amount to unlawful harassment in some circumstances - see paragraphs 103 and 104, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf

It would be worth reading Mackereth - summarised at https://www.lewissilkin.com/en/insights/gender-critical-religious-beliefs-are-protected-but-do-not-justify-discriminatory-behaviour . His beliefs were found to be protected, but none the less the decision to fire him for a refusal to use prefered pronouns was found to be justified.

By taking the stance you propose you would be going beyond the protections in Forstater and would be putting your job on the line. That is, of course, your choice, but it is worth asking yourself if this is the hill you wish to die on.

My understanding (IANAL) is that you can't be compelled to participate in a belief system you don't subscribe to.

You can't harass or discriminate against others for their belief in Gender Ideology or for being trans, just as you can't harass or discriminate against them for any other protected characteristic. On the other hand, they can't harass or discriminate against you for your lack of belief and refusal to participate in using wrong sex pronouns.

Perhaps this would be a good place to start asking questions of your organisation? In your shoes I might start by stating my position as a sex realist and then say that I note from the Forstater judgment that it's illegal to compel an employee to participate in a belief system such as Gender Ideology. Any compulsion to use wrong sex pronouns could be argued to be illegal as well as ableist and homophobic. I might ask whether they need to take advice on whether what they propose is legally viable. I'd try to word it rather better then here, but it's late and I should be in bed...

OK, let's say it actually happens, next time you run a course, Nancy is there. You've never met Nancy before and unlikely to meet them again. Nancy asks you to use she/her and you insist on he/him throughout the day.

Nancy complains, you're called up on code of conduct. Nancy has insisted they're a woman and has a passport etc to prove it but you're going to argue they're a man. How's that going to work? How are you going to prove you're right and Nancy is wrong?

And to add, a workplace code of conduct can make it obligatory to do all sorts of things not actually covered by a law, e.g turn up at a certain time, wear a certain uniform, use certain titles etc.

My (inexpert) interpretation is that you're still not permitted to be deliberately unpleasant to people, and using pronouns they have asked you not to, to their face, could be considered that. Maya has said she will use preferred pronouns in work settings.

What I think it permits you to do is use correctly sexed pronouns where there is a legitimate need to do so, e.g. referring to someone's sex in relation to single sex services, sports etc. where not doing so makes language difficult and obscures something important.

But I am happy for someone to offer a better interpretation!

“I'd adopt strategies such as not using pronouns for those concerned: 'Nancy's report, Nancy's strategies — just use the name or some other reference ('the client from XYZ') — and avoid the use of she/ he and his /her. I might just refer to them by the wrong pronouns and if picked up apologise and say 'Sorry, I'm juggling a lot at the moment and I sometimes forget.'”

This. I’d cheerfully subvert and take this to the enth degree before I’d submit to being forced to call a man she or her.

I view using someone's pronouns as being like using someone's "married" surname. I don't believe in the ideas behind it but understand that others differ so I extend them the courtesy of referring to them as they wish as it makes working life easier for them and me. I pick my battles.

In my workplace - in common with many others, I suspect - failing to use someone's preferred pronouns is a disciplinary offence, so I don't really have any choice if I want to keep my job. As someone said - that is a hard battle to fight and I try to pick topics I think I might get more traction on.

I'd adopt strategies such as not using pronouns for those concerned: 'Nancy's report, Nancy's strategies — just use the name or some other reference ('the client from XYZ') — and avoid the use of she/ he and his /her.

I'm thinking aloud here rather than challenging you, but if OP is so adamant about not using female pronouns in this example, how is agreeing to use Nancy's adopted feminine name any better/different?

Another approach would be to point out that expecting people to use different pronouns is ableist. It's hard enough for those of us who don't have communication or speech-processing or ND issues, but for those who do — and some might not even know they have a disability — it can be extremely difficult and stressful.

https://www.ourrighttospeak.com/

I'd adopt strategies such as not using pronouns for those concerned: 'Nancy's report, Nancy's strategies — just use the name or some other reference ('the client from XYZ') — and avoid the use of she/ he and his /her. I might just refer to them by the wrong pronouns and if picked up apologise and say 'Sorry, I'm juggling a lot at the moment and I sometimes forget.' I'm mindful of the Jo Phenix tribunal where, within a few minutes of a witness declaring themselves to be they/ them the barrister and the judge were misgendering right and left. It's a massive ask to require you to stop doing what you've been doing automatically without conscious thought since you were a small child — seeing a man and calling him 'he' or 'him'. Perhaps you need to make this point: how difficult it is even for people entirely on-board with self-ID to be consistent and how stressful it is.

It might also be worth bringing up the fact that since the Scottish ruling of recent weeks, the only man who can legally say he is a woman (and vice verse) is someone with a GRC. Also point out that lack of belief in gender ideology is a protected position and that speech cannot be compelled.

If your management has any integrity it should be prepared to listen to you. I hope they do.

I have no advice but I want to wish you well OP. What you are doing is so important and I thank you.

When did the meaning of 'preferred' change? I didn't realise that it now means 'mandatory'.

Also, I see your conundrum.
You are working for a company whose values you possibly share and now they are requesting that you validate something that by your values and instincts is dishonest and has further consequences. Yes, the introduction of pronouns often is the thin end of the wedge.
I would look to see if you can garner any support, are there any possible allies?

Yes I’m not sure compelled speech should be what happens

The problem is someone imposing non-sex based pronouns on others is legitimising one person's not reality based belief over everyone else's beliefs. Is that acceptable in your organisation OP? Your organisation is setting themselves up to compel belief. Do you want to do that to people? People are already scared about speaking up about this - surely it will kill any facilitated sessions dead if people from the start feel that there will be a negative consequence to being truthful?

It's not polite or inclusive to insist everyone takes part in your highly contentious, non-objective beliefs. I can respect some people believe they are the opposite sex for a variety of reasons - some of which are very troubling. It certainly shouldn't mean I have to partake in their pronoun rituals or be compelled to lie. Where is the kindness towards those of us who were forced to lie by abusive adults as children and see this as another form of gaslighting and mostly male control over women?

It depends whether it's just using someone's stated pronouns if they state them or forcing participants to state pronouns - which is compelled speech/ belief, is signing customers up to a belief system they may not believe in, may be very opposed to, and may not wish to discuss either way, and is likely to lose the company business.

You say you're an international company well lots of cultures don't recognise 'preferred pronouns' in English as biological sex is very important in their community.

You say you're a facilitator which suggests lots of participants at once. Well, would recognising one person's pronouns mean that others are forced to go along with a belief system they don't necessarily agree with? A bit like demanding everyone take communion or something.

Is there even a situation where third person pronouns need to be used? If not, it's all performative gender ideology worship and compelled belief.

Given it sounds like your organisation suggests there is an objective truth, I'm sorry but the vast preponderance of evidence is in favour of biological sex being the reality. And at the very least, from the sounds of it your organisation needs to accept the reality that many people only 'see' sex not gender, don't believe in the latter as anything more than stereotypes, and that you cannot compel belief in others to see the world as you see it. Given gender ideology is all about trying to force belief in others, I think them dabbling in this is seriously unhinged and probably means the implosion of their business model. Customers will see the glaring hypocrisy and take their money elsewhere.

You can force someone (usually a woman) to use she/her for a man via threats and abuse but they're still going see that man as a man - probably even more so given the toxic bullying behaviour and refusal to accept their point of view as valid.

It appears we are often being unwillingy led by teenagers in this matter and teenagers dictating to their parents in managerial positions.

I'm cautiously optimistic that all this extraneous pronoun mullarkey will die a natural death owing to it being unsustainable due to the multitude of (sometimes ridiculous) variations.

In the meantime there are going to be women and other brave people either fighting it tooth and nail or just quietly being pronoun refuseniks and choosing to simply address the pronoun demanding person by their name.

Grateful that SexMatters provide information on the legalities.
Good Luck O.P, let us know how you get on.

There's a difference to being instructed to discuss / reveal pronouns on emails, letters and at the beginning of meetings. That's compelled speech with lots of people choosing not to participate,

But the workplace is not the place to challenge participants, visitors, guests or co workers about their pronouns or personal beliefs about their identity. This is a massive political battle and women are on the back foot given the power that the trans lobby hold. But I wouldn't challenge an individual in the work place - surely that moves into hostile treatment of an individual?

Not much advice but good luck op I hope it goes well