Enby they/them pronouns - what's the law on this?

This. It’s just common decency! OP you can think Jane is batshit all you want privately and as long as Jane doesn’t infringe Jane’s mindset on others or have a chip on Jane’s shoulder about it, then it can all remain respectful and a non-issue. You seem combative to
be honest.
Is it your own business, as in, do you own the company? Or do you just work there? If it’s the latter I’d really not choose this as your hill to die on.

Jane has stated that she requires other people to use they/them pronouns when talking about her. Jane wouldn’t insist on they/them pronouns if she accepted that she’s a singular female being.

This means one of:

• Jane believes she’s really, genuinely neither male nor female.
• Jane knows she’s female, but she doesn’t believe she’s only one person.

Neither are true, but either could be her belief.

If you insist on saying that Jane is female then her insistence on plural pronouns must be because she believes she’s more than one person.

If you insist on believing that Jane is one person and you believe her to be female despite using her chosen they/them pronouns (and you’ve clearly stated you do) when Jane believes herself to be non-binary, then by the rules of trans rights you’re simply a transphobic bigot.

Jane has stated that she requires other people to use they/them pronouns when talking about her. Jane wouldn’t insist on they/them pronouns if she accepted that she’s a singular female being.

This means one of:

• Jane believes she’s really, genuinely neither male nor female.
• Jane knows she’s female, but she doesn’t believe she’s only one person.

Neither are true, but either could be her belief.

If you insist on saying that Jane is female then her insistence on plural pronouns must be because she believes she’s more than one person.

If you insist on believing that Jane is one person and you believe her to be female despite using her chosen they/them pronouns (and you’ve clearly stated you do) when Jane believes herself to be non-binary, then by the rules of trans rights you’re simply a transphobic bigot.

I’m pretty gender critical, but I also believe in being basically decent and showing respect in most cases. I don’t eat meat but I don’t lecture people who do, because it’s their choice and has little impact on me. Jane may be biologically female but might prefer to go by non-binary pronouns. Why not accommodate that? How hard is it to change an email signature FFS?

I’ve never used any of those. I just use their titled name eg “If we look at Lady Danby’s properties”, “Dowager Bridgerton mentioned earlier that she wanted to spend more time in Spain”.

We’re on close enough relationships that I wouldn’t use such grand “your grace” type addresses, but definitely wouldn’t be referring to them as Jane or she.

But I could as easily substitute in Jane or Susan if I wanted to avoid pronouns, and restructure a few sentences to avoid repeating their name. It’s easily done. I’ve never actually been told to avoid using pronouns for them, but I am cringing thinking about it, so it’s more I avoid the need to instead of making a faux pas.

Yes, that will do it:

104. Although the claimant has taken steps to change attributes of their sex from female, by changing their name to a name which can be identified as of either sex, and has changed their preferred pronouns, those are not in our view attributes which are for the purpose of moving from one sex to the other, they are steps in the process of moving away from the female sex to a different gender identity, ie that of non binary. The claimant is not proposing, nor do they intend to take any steps to reassign their sex from that of female to male. 105. We therefore find that the claimant does not have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

Although still a first level ET, it finds opposite to Taylor. The Judge did say specifically "there is no direct authority from higher courts upon [this] legal point." So I guess it's one-all at half time. I wonder what the EAT would say.

So you’d rather make her uncomfortable to prove a point, than show her a tiny bit of courtesy by respecting her wishes. Well, don’t worry, if you freeze her out enough she’ll probably leave and you can all carry on as you were.

Haech Lockwood?

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/non-binary-trans-protections-gender-reassignment-lockwood-v-cheshire-and-wirral-nhs-foundation-trust/

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6926ec33a245b0985f0340aa/Haech_Lockwood_v_Cheshire_and_Wirral_NHS_Foundation_Trust_and_others_2401211_2024___2407178_2024.pdf

And at the point at which she tries to coerce others, that can be addressed. However there are posters on here that are suggesting she can’t even make the request or if she does they have to counter it by ridiculously introducing her as multiple people. The position currently is she “may” ask. It’s starting to look like preemptive offence taking.

I don't think it's quite that simple. Castellucci focused on the GRA and whether a NB identifying person had a right to a GRC sex other than male or female - they didn't. It didn't touch on matters under the EA2010.

I don't think non-binary is mentioned anywhere in GLP or FWS. FWS reiterates the definition of GR from the EA2010, but doesn't comment much further, that I can see.

And while I agree that the definition of GR doesn't appear to allow for people claiming to be NB to use the umbrella of GR as a PC but it was allowed by the first level ET in Taylor v Jaguar Landrover - and that was not appealed, so it is the only directly relevant case law we have.

You may be right that if Taylor was heard now it would be decided differently - but it doesn't seem entirely obvious to me.

Yes, she can use whatever language she likes to describe herself, but that doesn’t mean she can coerce others to say things that they do not believe. You have pointed out in another post that an employer can have a Christian ethos, and require employees to support that Christian ethos. The employer cannot, however, require non-Christian employees to recite the Catechism, or say any other things that they do not believe.

😄😄😄😄😄😄

We should have stuck with "thou art".

Would you say the same to a vegan person about just eating the ham sandwich because a meat eater asked them too?
I ask because its the same thing

Shakespeare, Byron, Geoffrey Chaucer, Jane Austen, and the King James Bible would disagree.

Pronoun verb agreement is weak sauce - do you have problems saying "you are" singular?

If thats from the jaguar land rover case it was superseded by the sc judgment in the case of the American nb, the fws sc case and most recently specifically in the high crt judgement against the glp. Non binary is not recognised in UK law and as such is not protected under the law.

gender critical beliefs are in no way protected by law - huge misconception

Forstater v CGD made it very clear that they are.

What makes you think she'll want they/ them pronouns?

But most of this is bollocks. You’re fully aware she doesn’t think she’s more than one person. Your decision to refer to her in the plural “these are Janes” is just you choosing to make some kind of point. You know really, just as we all know that Jane is female, that no one would be particularly confused by “This is Jane. They are starting on Monday”. Most people wouldn’t give it a second thought. It’s hard to tell, between you and Jane, who the biggest attention seeker is.

Being married or civilly partnered is a protected characteristic. Refusing to use a woman's married name could easily be argued as discriminatory.

Feeling non-binary isn't a protected characteristic.

You are mistaken - if the role requires it (e.g. working for a church organisation or Christian charity) it is permissable under law to say employees have to believe/ be active followers of the religion. It's an exemption under the equalities act, similar to someone employing a personal assistant being able to specify sex etc. Though you'd think if you were applying for a role closely linked to a religion that you might be vaguely supportive of it. I know teachers that won't work at a faith school because they don't agree with it, which is perfectly fine.

A company where let's say the founder/ CEO or whatever has a particular religion cannot however insist the employees also follow that religion if the business of the company is not directly related to the religion. And then there's a grey area of things like Christian bookshops, where you can set out the ethos of the company and tell staff they have to abide by the ethos but not necessarily have to believe. Similar to a company that has any sort of policy, you gave to abide by it, even if privately you disagree.

It’s the way our language works. We refer to a single garment (trousers or tights) in the plural, even calling them ‘a pair’. To say ‘a trouser’ or ‘a tight’ sounds wrong (and is wrong!), it jars and goes against the expected flow of speech.

The reverse is true about referring to the single woman standing in front of you as a 1+.

I can see she’s one person.

You can see she’s one person.

Yet you say one person apparently has the power to compel two people to abandon the usual conventions of grammar.

Jane can believe she’s as many people as she wants, she can believe she’s isn’t female, she can even believe she’s the granddaughter of Queen Victoria.

It is her belief - not mine, not yours.

Beliefs don’t need any grounding in reality to be real to the person who believes them.

But that doesn’t mean everyone else needs to start believing them too.

I believe Jane is one person. Singular. Female.

And expecting me to play along and abandon my belief for the supremacy of Jane’s belief is completely unacceptable.

Why would anyone be uncomfortable with saying they / them? This person presumably isn’t asking anyone else to add their pronouns to their email signature which obviously would be unreasonable. Not sure what the discomfort would be? Just use their name as others have said. “Where’s Jane?” “Ah Jane nipped to the loo” it’s not hard is it.
why can’t they just add their pronouns to their email signature if they’re that arsed? (Note I'm using they and they’re here as I have no clue of their biological sex - and it doesn’t sound odd)

eg

Kind regards,
Prawn (they/them)

Accidental Prawn
Opinionated Manager
Corporate Firm
020-7666-666

Because it's lunacy?