Misgendering - LGBT allies training

I know what you're saying but it's not that difficult to get used to. I managed to do it a few times for family members and yeah, I got it 'wrong' a few times but then it just comes naturally.

“This person is your colleague just living their life and like you said yourself, a nice person that you like so just do your best as I'm sure they'll understand if you get their pronoun wrong occasionally. The Law here isn't really relevant is it, be polite and kind as this person has been to you. I cannot see the issue.”

Demanding (it is coercive if someone’s job security is threatened by a ‘request’) that people use personalised language such as avoiding well established English language conventions just for that specific person is indeed a problem.

That you cannot see the issue, is the issue.

I’m sure but was just a name change that OP would have no issue with it. It’s the demand (I’ll call it a demand because it sounds clear there may be consequences if OP doesn’t comply) to use incorrect words that go against the habit of a lifetime.

I think of pronouns and various similar parts of language as ‘autopilot’ language. You don’t have to fully engage your brain to say the right word as your brain knows at a sub conscious level when you are talking about either a man or a woman and from birth, you have been taught the correct words relating to those sexes.

It’s a big ask of a colleague for purposes of vanity. The person asking feels superior or somehow special compared to us ‘bog standard’ women who don’t spend hours contemplating our self actualised ‘identity’ and requires us to give them special treatment to reinforce that ‘special’ feeling.

that was meant to say ‘unlawful policies’.

I’m sorry you’re struggling; this is 100% why we shouldn’t be being coerced to use compelled speech.

It’s an extra brain burden for some which in some working environments would seriously distract from more important priorities. Eg high pressured situations where split second decisions must be made and relies on team work.

I speak from experience and the added extra mental load was an issue when I was also struggling with sleep deprivation and a health issue that directly affects cognition.

Can't you just say 'Barry' or 'Loretta' or whatever their name is? If that's easier. I think you'll get used to it. It's not malicious and you'll make an effort to not do it so that's all you can do.

People may not think NB is legit as an identity but it's fair enough to just call people what they ask.

It shouldn’t be an issue but it gets made into an issue by workplace bullies enforcing u hateful policies on compelled speech.

OP is worried that she will suffer consequences from her employer if she doesn’t alter her deeply embedded speech patterns according to the demands of her colleague and the enforcers in the company and the company he making no attempt to balance the rights of all its employees, just focusing on the unreasonable demands of some.

That is a major issue. Why would you not have just a tiny bit of sympathy for a mum if littles, stressed and frazzled and understandably worrying for her job?

I don’t know why you are suggesting anyone should apologise for not using the ‘pronouns’ she specifies. ‘Pronouns’ are used according to the sex of the person you are referring to. Everyone has a sex.

One colleague knows I'm gender critical (So is she) and I'm worried that if new colleague were to know that it might be an issue for them.

It is so wrong that GC beliefs have to be hidden to avoid upsetting others. Nobody would accept this with religious beliefs.

I don't think that you understand what is actually being demanded of people when someone requires you to use preferred pronouns.
Firstly using wrong sexed, made up or grammatically wrong pronouns for someone they are insisting that you partake in an act of religious observance, even when it goes against your legally protected religious and/or atheism.
Secondly preferred pronouns involve both compelled speach and thought.
Both of these points show that preferred pronouns are not legally enforceable as nobody has the right to demand that anyone else partakes in an act of religious observance for any religion, nor does anyone have the right to compelle someone else's speach or thoughts.
Freedom of religion and atheism are cornerstones of all human rights along with freedom of speach and thought.
I find it very disturbing that you would come on to this thread to castagate women for standing up for our rights of freedom or religion, belief and freedom of thought and speach.
Also nobody should have to apologise for using correct sex pronouns for anyone regardless of how they identify and any policies that demand the use of preferred pronouns is illegal belief discrimination. Requiring people to repeatedly correct the speach of another member of staff would be both employer sanctioned bullying and belief discrimination.
So yes this is a big thing to ask and just having policies that require the above behaviour is going to find the employer and any member of staff adhering to it at serious risk of losing an employment tribunal.
Oh and the law is extremely important and relevant here btw so your attempt at emotional manipulation if used in real life is a sure fired way of being called out as a bullying bigot

If employment tribunal decisions aren't precedential they haven't established anything.

But aside from that, they aren't making any sense. Section 8 applies to a person "proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex."

What has that got to do with identifying as non-binary?

Oh @NumbersGuy surprised took you so long to pipe up…
so yet again, a heretic is someone who won’t bow to someone else’s demands?

To all of the heretics here, LOL:

Despite the lack of legal recognition, employment tribunals have established that non-binary and gender-fluid individuals are protected from discrimination and harassment under the "gender reassignment" characteristic of the {Equality Act 2010 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents}.

As I understand it, GC beliefs are protected and Maya's case and subsequent many employment tribunals say so.

I'm not aware of any cases that have found gender ideology as a belief is protected, but then I'm not sure anyone has been fired for those beliefs, so the cases wouldn't have come about.

Gender Reassignment is protected but doesn't include NB and you can't legally be NB in the UK. Court cases attempting to have failed https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyve4m79e6lo
So someone can't even be NB in legal fiction.

Even if someone has a GRC, sex still means biological sex as confirmed by FWS case.

This case was last year and said NB is not a protected characteristic. It also says that the Landrover case does not apply now because the FWS case has superseded it. Paraphrasing but that is the gist.

https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/h-lockwood-v-cheshire-and-wirral-nhs-foundation-trust-and-others-2401211-slash-2024-and-2407178-slash-2024

A word on that Jaguar case those EDI trainers love to quote .

Firstly it was a first level Employment Tibunal so sets no precedent in case law. The legal person representing the appellant was not even a solicitor. Worst of all the judge who presided over the case a very few short months later was disciplined for being inebriated whilst hearing a case and i understand not sat on any case since .

The said EDI trainers never mention this bit .

Barra Kerr received a seven day ban on MN for this article.

Pronouns are rohypnol. They lower our defences. We stop feeling the danger or safety we feel when we use incorrect pronouns.

We do not know if the OP's colleague is a man or a woman.

Think about that. If the OP's colleague is a woman, which I admit from the language used (seems very pleasant) is my understanding, then nothing to worry about. Let's just be nice. Polite.

But if the OP's colleague is a man, maybe we would all be a bit more wary. Why is a man "non-binary"? Is he being intimidating? If the OP doesn't use they/them, will she be threatened? Is he more likely to go to HR and not waive it off?

Pronouns matter, even in this thread about a complete stranger, who may be perfectly innocuous.

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/peakoilpetroleumandpreciousmetals/must-read-pronouns-are-rohypnol-by-barra-kerr-t63203.html

It's not misgendering. It's correctly sexing.

Exactly. They are misgendering themselves. We are refusing to play along.

I didn't realise that a former colleague was non-binary and used correctly sexed pronouns when referring to this individual. An 'ally' pointedly said 'oh they've this and they that' effectively correcting me. Trouble is I've a disability which makes communication difficult for me and I'm slower on the uptake so I didn't realise she was correcting me and why she was off with me.

So basically I may as well have misgendered Sam Smith in conversation as the person no longer worked there.

And my colleague wasn't taking account of my disability.

I know everyone here loves a pile on about this stuff but seriously, is it really an issue? Just do your best, they/them can be tricky but really there's no reason for this level on introspection about this... If you get it wrong, just say sorry and move along. This person is your colleague just living their life and like you said yourself, a nice person that you like so just do your best as I'm sure they'll understand if you get their pronoun wrong occasionally. The Law here isn't really relevant is it, be polite and kind as this person has been to you. I cannot see the issue.

Just to add to what others have said.

The protected characteristic is "gender reassingment" and as yet in the UK abound 10,000 people have completed this and got a GRC. Which means they have a "legal sex" via the GRC (which just adds to the confusion is the certificate uses the word gender, but in terms of the EA is or was about whether having a "legal sex" is the same as someone biological sex).

Under the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment, this can cover those who are starting the process of gaining a certificate.

It does not cover someone who just "identifies" or is no binary or whatever is the latest fashion amongh those who have grown up during Stonewall's reign of terror on sex.

Sadly I think despite the Supreme Court ruling and the recent High Court outcome, many people still think that what Stonewall said should be listened to, not the UK legal system.

But then neither does Bridget Phillipson!

So havind said all of that, I think OP you should just do as much as you can to point out errors in understanding by trainer and your employers.

And if you have an HR department can you talk to them in an informal way that you struggle with the whole pronoun rules, and they must be aware there was a court case where is was made clear that employers are obliged to respect the different beliefs of employees and it is not appropriate for them to say one set of beliefs take precedent over another.

ie using "they" or whatever can be asked for as a courtesy but not as an obligation.

Simply say I used the pronouns that align with x's observable sex in line with my protected belief in sex realism.
**
….and 50+ years of lived experience/language training/habit/convention/knowledge of mother tongue etc etc.

It's not misgendering. It's correctly sexing.

It takes a great deal of mental effort and anxiety to remember to use preferred pronouns that differ from observable sex, as you are demonstrating.

If you use the correct sex pronouns and are admonished for it, do not apologise. Simply say I used the pronouns that align with x's observable sex in line with my protected belief in sex realism.

ah the dread EXTERNAL TRAINER syndrome
Do you know who it was? From a charity or a self-identified specialist?
There's a very This Isn't Working Pod on this issue.
watch Akua Reindorf KC from about 45'50