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

@nothingcomestonothing I was discussing the law, not my own views, in answer to the OP.

However, transgender people are not a "safeguarding issue" for children, any more than gay people were when the same line of attack was used in the 70s and 80s.

It's true that Mackereth did not explore the option of deliberately avoiding pronouns and titles - the complainant suggested this as an option, then withdrew it, so there was no judgment on that.

It's also the case that the school might attempt an accommodation (or simply avoid the issue.) In which case, a court case would be less likely, though if the transgender teacher complained, and the school did not change their policy, the teacher would have a strong case for direct discrimination.

It might be ok, because we had a trans teacher at our school and of course everyone knew he was a man but the kids just said Miss....until one day he decided he would rather be called Mx. Now it's one thing asking kids to be respectful and referring to a trans teacher as Miss, but quite another to introduce a stupid made up word which means nothing to children and is designed to confuse them further. Luckily one of the teachers told a mum, who put it on the wattsap group, who kicked up a fuss. It was reverted back to Miss.

wouldn't it be great if all we had here was a man dressed in appropriate, professional 'feminine' clothing with maybe longer hair and some mascara, and all OP had to deal with was sniggering from rude teenagers

I’m also not sure about this, DadJoke, and I think you may be selectively quoting from Mackereth. From memory, the employer tried to find a workaround (such as avoiding pronouns) but this wasn’t acceptable to Mackereth, so he quit and claimed constructive dismissal.

In any case, so far we only know that we have a male colleague here who likes to adopt a feminine style but the OP has not had clear instructions, or been presented with a new name, so this is all guesswork - hardly enough to warrant dismissal!

Hi @pronounsbundlebundle

Would you mind sharing the page that this statement is included on please? This is really interesting but am unable to find it in the KCSIE doc. Many thanks!

Sorry to hijack your thread OP but am in a very similar boat!

RTFT. In particular, the quotation from KCSIE upthread.

Children must not be used as validation tools for adults. Children must not be forced to lie to make an adult happy. Can you really not see where requiring children to deny the evidence of their eyes, and to ignore their own disquiet to please an adult, leads?

The fact that you would prioritise the wants of the adult, is profoundly depressing.

Yes, that's pretty much what I said.

However in Mackereth (informed by Forstater), it stated that "Refusing to refer to a transgender person other than by his/her/their birth sex, or relevant pronouns, titles, or styles, would constitute unlawful discrimination or harassment under the [Equality Act],”

So, while the views need to be balanced, the balance in case law so far would appear to lean towards not misgendering.

A general rule that transgender teachers can be freely misgendered by gender critical people seems unlikely.

Also, who wants to be a test case?

@DadJoke The opposing rights would have to be balanced as gender critical views are now a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act.

The judge also stated that while gender-critical views might be "profoundly offensive and even distressing to many others...they are beliefs that are and must be tolerated in a pluralist society".

It's not a simple case and will depend on the context and surrounding circumstances.

How is avoiding his name and prefix discrimination? Discrimination is sacking him because he's transgender.

I would call him first name/surname

It will become blindingly obvious if you avoid using her name and prefix, and it would be gender reassignment discrimination, which would need to be balanced against your gender critical beliefs, just as it is with religious beliefs.

It's possible that if they asked employees to use her correct name, title and pronouns and you refused, you could be dismissed.

As the Forstater judgement says:

"[The decision] does not mean… that those with gender-critical beliefs can indiscriminately and gratuitously refer to trans persons in terms other than they would wish. Such conduct could, depending on the circumstances, amount to harassment of, or discrimination against, a trans person.”

and Mackereth:

"Refusing to refer to a transgender person other than by his/her/their birth sex, or relevant pronouns, titles, or styles, would constitute unlawful discrimination or harassment under the [Equality Act],”

"DWP’s policies requiring practitioners to use people’s correct pronouns “were a necessary and proportionate means of achieving their legitimate aims”

I’d definitely wait to be told to call him miss. Then you can have a conversation with whoever has dictated it. Under no circumstances ask him his preference. Then you’ll be stuck with having to go along with it.

It is good for the children to have a role model that shows them they don’t have to go along with, if they don’t want to.

Presumably @Lemonlemonlemonapple would be happy to go along with this mind-bending rubbish

As long as I can have a lie down and a glass of wine at the end of each day to recover, I’m all for it. I wonder what pronouns Dali would choose?

I see @Lemonlemonlemonapple has discovered the Judy thread.

For those who don't know, it concerns a man called Mac has decided his pronoun is Judy. Which is not, of course, a pronoun at all but a noun since 'noun' basically means 'name'. And so Mac has single handedly had a go at renaming parts of speech and people who have to deal with him might be compelled by law to go along with his ridiculousness. Can I single handedly decide that 'blue' is an adverb? Can I announce 'cake' is a verb? Why not?

I have no idea if Mac uses Judy as his possessive pronoun: 'show Mac to Judy room '. That's not going to get confusing is it?

Presumably @Lemonlemonlemonapple would be happy to go along with this mind-bending rubbish as s/he seems to think we must use people's chosen words at work.(Mac is in the US, BTW).

This is going to be a head fuck for the kids. Male teachers/TAs/any other roles in schools are Sir. Female teachers/TAs/any other roles are Miss. I went to a Catholic primary school. Every female teacher was Sister whether she was a nun or not and the two male teachers were Father. It took me a whole year at secondary school to learn to use Miss and Sir.

Has SLT given a steer on this at all? Can you ask your manager for advice?

I do have to ask, though: why is this your problem? Unless and until you are given explicit instructions from management, I think you should be free to refer to him as you see fit. How else are you supposed to know?

Here we are, being sucked into a young man’s personal drama - ‘when do I use she/her? When I change my name/hairstyle/dress/ear rings? When, oh when?’ - when really there are so many more important problems in the world. But that’s the point, isn’t it, that everybody else becomes a participant.

I quite like the idea of using the job title 'TA name' etc. That's clever. It also doesn't break the rules of English, confusing all the poor children struggling to learn English.

Just say you’ve decided to adopt the pronoun ‘Judy’ for everyone, lol.

Or refer to him by his entire name, as if you were Russian. (Although, they use the given name and patronymic, which is sexed, so this wouldn't work at all well if you were actually Russian.)

You could refer to him by only his surname and pretend you’re just really old-skool.

And if you do use wrong sex pronouns you're emotionally abusing the children in the class according to statutory safeguarding guidance that every member of staff HAS to be trained in each year.

If you have to break something do you want it to be some workplace policy based on Stonewall fake law or the statutory safeguarding laws protecting children from abuse?

I know which I'd choose. Of course, not using compelled pronouns is not against the law - that's just a fantasy law, which doesn't exist. Indeed, most recent court cases very much are supporting women's rights to speak biological truth. Just because people say something's 'the law' doesn't mean it is. And people who are unwilling to face reality about biological sex are perhaps not the best people to know the reality of the law either.

I used to work in a school. In your situation I absolutely would not call this man 'Miss' which in most schools signifies 'female teacher/TA'. Doing otherwise would feel like a lie, and I wouldn't want to work in an environment where my speech was compelled. I'd avoid calling him 'Mr' not because it's inaccurate but out of respect for his belief and his comfort. But that's as far as it would go. If first names aren't an option then awkward phrasing would be the way forward for me, unfortunately.

I'm an atheist. One of my colleagues was a Creationist. I didn't tell her that I thought her belief was nonsense or start arguments about evolution with her. I also didn't teach the children that God made the world in 6 days, just because she believed it. Likewise when I taught about Islam I was very respectful of Muslim beliefs but I didn't say 'peace be upon him' every time I mentioned Muhammad or other prophets, because I'm not a believer myself.

The difference being, of course, that no religious person has ever expected or even asked me to say words which indicate I share their beliefs. The transactivists try to demand it. But that would be my line. I wouldn't call him Miss and I wouldn't tell the children he was a woman.

This is a textbook example of how a minority can impose their view on a majority even without saying a word - it exploits kindness over truth, "forces" an honest person to lie and, in turn, gradually imposes that lie on children.