What would you do? Re school staff member and colleague calling himself 'miss'

We have recently changed to a new data management system. Whereas before there was no function for pronouns, now this new system has a space by employee name for "pronouns". Not even. "preferred pronouns". Already we have one member of staff who has "they/she" in the email footer.

It's going to come to a head, and all employers have ducked their head right down, and kowtowed to GI when pushed, requiring everyone else to either be passive bystanders or risk their jobs if their boss takes exception to protest.

Yes it is forcing people to declare they believe that males can be women and vice versa. And we are not required to believe that. Not believing that is protected by law.

Declining to use wrong sex honorifics or pronouns is no different than declining to say mashallah when talking about something that's in the past. I can say it, I can't require you to say it.

It probably will come to court at some point.

Someone expecting their name and pronouns to be respected at work isn’t forcing anyone to believe anything. Refusing to respect people’s name and pronouns is likely to be harassment. If someone wants to go to court to test that out they can, but they’re likely to lose.

No one's debating their existence. But asking to be called opposite sex pronouns clearly is expressing a belief. And it's one many people feel is damaging to women. Who are oppressed.

Sigh.

Noone is trying to prevent them from existing. But they do not have the right to force others to believe what they believe. They do not have the right to compell others' speech. Equality.

The trans person just existing isn’t expressing beliefs.

That's the point. Neither of those putative people have carte blanche to express their beliefs at work. That's the point.

That’s unlikely. There isn’t carte blanche to express beliefs at work.

At work, trying to force a person with the protected characteristic of belief to use the wrong sex pronouns or wrong sex honorific is likely to be harassment on the grounds of belief under the Equality Act.

See how it works? Equality. No hierarchy. A transperson's wants don't trump any else's wants. Sorry Stonewall lied to you about the law.

At work, persistently refusing to use their name and persistently misgendering them is likely to be gender reassignment harassment under the equality act.

Firstly, the Equality Act doesn't say people can change sex. Because they can't.

Secondly, the Equality Act prevents people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment from being discriminated against in the provision of goods and services. Meaning, they cannot be treated less well than a person without the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, for no reason. The comparator for a TW is a man, the comparator for a TM is a woman.

The Equality Act does not mean that a person with the PC of gender reassignment can do whatever they like, or force other people to do what they want them to. They are protected against unlawful discrimination, they are not given carte blanche to try to force other people to do what they want them to. Other people have rights too.

People cannot change sex. That is not a belief. It is fact.

Legally they can and the government specifically protects people doing so via the equality act and gender recognition act.

That's a really poor analogy.

Heterosexual marriage too; birth and death are all aknowledged by the state in the form of registration and a certificate. They are the major life events the world over. Hatches, matches and dispatches.

Being gay is just about fancying and being romantically attracted to someone of the same sex. It makes no demands of anyone else; it does not require people to believe one has changed sex. Gay men make no demands to enter into women's spaces and services or sporting competitions. And they make no specific demands on pronouns.

The current legislation for 'gender -reassignment' was drafted before the legislation for gay equality was introduced. Its purpose was to allow people of the same sex but who had 'transitioned' to marry. It was never intended for the sorts of situations we see, today; and it was never intended as a passport for men to enter into women only spaces or services. It was also introduced before the current craze for Post modernistic Queer Theory and enforced pronoun use.

People cannot change sex. That is not a belief. It is fact.

Gay marriage requires acknowledgement. You couldn’t at work say you were religious and don’t believe gay people can get married, so you’re not going to use gay people’s married names or titles. Not using trans people names and titles, because you don’t believe people can change sex is the same, as society / the government allows people to change legal sex.

Miss XX
Mr XY

What do mean by ‘has come out’?

@Holeinamole in this instance your colleague has come out as a trans woman. Would you refer to them as Miss X or not?

@DadJoke
Until I have clear instructions and in the absence of a clear declaration from the colleague, I would refer to ‘Mr Y’ as I would respect this person’s privacy and not draw premature conclusions from a manner of dressing.

If my employer insists on certain appellations in the workplace, I would expect to have this made clear, and I would also expect to be given a warning before dismissal. Given that there are all sorts of gender identities out there now (anyone remember the LSE student who identified as ‘genderfuck’? Would I address such a person as Fucker X??), no employer can reasonably expect employees to navigate this on their own.

Self-proclaimed trans allies often remind me of busybodies who like to stick their noses in other people’s lives. How can they be so confident that they know how somebody identifies? This rush to validate, what are they getting out of that? And as for being behind the times … do spend some time with teenagers, especially male teenagers. The kids are alright.

I think the point is that he is a 'mr', not a 'miss'. The children know he is a man and he dresses like a man, so they are being gaslighted into pretending they do not know this. That's a dangerous lesson to teach children.

Being gay requires no validation from anyone else in order to exist.

" Being trans" only exists within a conceptual framework. If you don't buy into the framework then what you have is someone who is "identifying as the opposite sex" - whatever that may mean. That is their issue, and their choice, but it does not mean you have to play along with situations in which you are deeply uncomfortable or compromised.

One can be polite to someone without having to kow tow to their oprivate belief system.

How totalitarian of you.

Being gender non-conforming as was my late DH (who wore nail varnish and had long hair, wore elaborate kaftans and also sported a beard) is fine. Saying your inner, unverifiable feelings make you a woman in a man's body is nonsense. Facts come before feelings. Males produce small gametes and females produce large ones, and this is the basis of sex, from which its immutability flows and every part of the sexed body recognises. If you produce small gametes you are a man and nothing in earth or heaven can change that. Gender expression is just a current social construct. In Saxon times men wore tunics and long dresses and had long hair - they were not women inside. Louis XIV wore his hair long, wore frills and lace and high heels, he too was not a woman inside.

Anything that necessarily involves you, is about you. She should speak with him in an open, honest and respectful way - explaining why she cannot comply. Respect goes two ways.

In your situation I would have a quiet word with him and express my feelings and views on the matter. Nothing aggressive; just honestly.