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

You will have someone in your team feeling excluded if you carry on

Inclusion means people with protected characteristics are included not people who are already in positions of power sociologically

you have taken a “side” and are assuming your team will be uncomfortable whereas it’s you that are uncomfortable

why don’t you just give it a whirl - you might learn something

but you have been speculating (and making it an issue that there is gossip about from the sounds of it) you’re also assuming your staff will be uncomfortable which is projecting you’re own feelings on to them - if you already know them you have been colluding with gossip

in no way should you encourage them not to use new members preferred pronouns

Yes, what I'm saying is that grievances can be brought against things which aren't covered explicitly by a law. So whilst legally the employee cannot compel colleagues to use preferred pronouns, they could bring grievances against them, and win. This could potentially result in a company policy around use of preferred pronouns, because conversely, there is no law which protects gender critical beliefs and refusal to use pronouns. The law is neither your friend nor your enemy in this situation!

Your post sounds combative because you are dismissing the new staffs needs before they have even got there and you talk about you think team sees it as you do - and your not going about it as a manager should to set an example of inclusion - that’s what workplaces want

and yes if you call her “she” when she asks for “they” you will be in hot water

There is no law compelling you to use preferred pronouns, however they could claim a number of issues depending on how you behave towards them, bullying, harassment, hostile work environment, constructive dismissal etc so I would tread carefully in how you deal with this. (I brought a successful grievance against a colleague for bullying when they refused to use my preferred name - I go by my middle name and always have and she insisted on calling me my first name).

Why can’t they tell others what pronouns they prefer? I don’t see what the problem is? It’s a preference, do what you like with it.

Legally, as I have mentioned in previous posts it’s unclear and will depend on a details of a situation that hasn’t happened yet.

In both of those situations I’d be using their name, or just reply ‘yes’ or ‘no’.

Why are you creating an issue where there isn't one yet? I'd hate to be the employee joining your team.

No one can be forced to refer to anyone else in any specific way. You won't be the first person to refuse to use this new employee's chosen pronouns and you won't be the last, unless they've lived an extraordinarily sheltered life thus far - it won't make any kind of point; at best you'll get an eye roll and a "here we go" reaction from them.

You might want to look Mackereth vs. DWP, also. Mackereth resigned his post after refusing to use clients' preferred pronouns while working at the DWP. The case went the EAT which said The actions the DWP was taking were held to be lawful. If I understand the final outcome correctly the EAT said that his Christian beliefs were themselves a protected characteristic and the ET was correct in conducting a balancing exercise to decide whether a policy that said a client's preferred pronouns should be used was a proportionate means to a legitimate aim which justified any indirect discrimination against him; in this case the DWP hadn't actually taken any action to punish Mackereth but was seeking to understand and accomodate his position.

The law does not recognise a non binary gender because the law states that there are two sexes, male and female. You cannot be neither sex.

The clash of beliefs has never been tested in court. Most court rulings are based on interpretation of existing law.

Summary: The legal position is unclear. One first-level (Taylor vs. Jaguar Landrover) ET found that a NB identifying person had the PC of GR. That was before Castellucci, the high court case where it was held that the GRA did not recognize non-binary as an identity. Does the use of biologically correct pronouns about a NB person reasonably violate their dignity or make a workplace a hostile intimidating (et. cetera) environment? Unclear.

I'd be careful about saying anything in advance at the company - will raise the question of you possibly being biased against the new starter. Good to think about it in advance, but only act if and when it becomes an issue.

Make sure you know what your company policy is. You say you have a standard team signature - but that sounds personal, and you should check how that fits in with any company policy that might be lurking somewhere. Employment tribunals (worst case scenario) look in detail at what the company policy is, and individuals have some protection if they are following it regardless of whether it is 'good' or not, and conversely can get hung out to dry if they don't.

From what I’m aware (although again not a lawyer), I don’t think there’s been a case in the UK that tested the legal position of “compelled speech” re pronouns yet. I’d be very happy to be corrected on this if I’m wrong.

With this is mind, I think your best bet would be to quietly and kindly rebuff efforts to introduce it into email signatures and go with using a first name instead of they/them if necessary. Hopefully your new colleague will be understanding and willing to compromise and you’ll be able to meet each other halfway.

It really isn’t. For one it’s not even happened yet. If they were a woman and made everyone say ‘he’ then I could see why some people wouldn’t want to. Using ‘they’ is completely fine and has happened for centuries (even Shakespeare used the term when describing someone of a known sex).

There is no need to say ‘he/she/they’ when that person is right in front of you. It really is a non-issue.

With a bit of research, I see that what I said earlier may not be correct. The only case I can find isTaylor v Jaguar Land Rover, an ET decision from 2020 in which a non-binary identity was said to engage the protected characteristic of GR.

You can read the decision here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5fc8d559d3bf7f7f5c134ad3/MsRTaylorvJaguarLandRoverLimited-1304471.2018-Reasons.pdf

Judgment here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5f68b2ebe90e077f5ac3bb5a/Ms_R_Taylor_V_Jaguar_Land_Rover_Ltd_-1304471_2018-_judgment.pdf

"The claimant has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment."

“who I think may want others to use they/them”

That’s what you said. They may. They may not. They may be happy if people try, if they want to, but not overly bothered if, in their eyes, they get it ‘wrong’. So as I said at this stage it seems largely a none issue.

Maybe some of your team aren’t bothered about it, but your “I’m not having it” attitude makes them unable to say anything. Maybe not. Who knows?

I feel for this person. What a great start to a new job they have!
I hope for their sake they are not non-binary.
Surely if they do their job well no one should give a damn about their pronoun's?

I just don’t understand all this handwringing and ‘legal position’ for something this innocuous. They haven’t even started yet, you don’t know this will even be a thing.

If I didn’t believe in women changing their name upon marriage and someone was transferring to my team who had just got married and changed her name, I’d be a bit of a dick to keep using her maiden name when she didn’t want me to. Technically it probably wouldn’t be unlawful, but it would be a bit churlish of me when I could just use her first name and avoid all the drama.