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

I don't think that holds up. The EA2010 has its own definition of GR which is not connected or linked to the requirements under the GRA to receive a GRC.

The EA2010 definition of GR hinges around undergoing or proposing to undergo a process to reassign the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

There's nothing that requires consideration of the GRA to interpret that. It's certainly not required to get or contemplate getting a GRC under the GRA to be covered by GR protections.

Again with the micro aggressions bs.
As Jane is the only person who is demanding that nobody acknowledges her sex Jane has singled herself out, referring to her by name and avoiding all pronouns for her is a reasonable compromise that she has to accept because of her choices, if that means she's the only person not referred to by correctly sexed pronouns thats her choice and not any form of aggression its mearly adhering to her request.
If Jane complains to her boss or hr then Jane would be bullying and harassing her coworkers and could face belief discrimination claims especially if she's keeping a record of who calls her by her name vs those who use her chosen pronouns.
Any employer who reprimands a member of staff for using Jane's name as a compromise is going to find themselves on the loosing end of an employment tribunal.

There is absolutely no way I would be citing my own GC beliefs in this scenario. Calling someone by their name is not a micro aggression. It’s a middle ground that works for everyone.
I do see what you are getting at, I have a similar situation at work at the moment (luckily I’m not this persons line manager), but I do respect this persons beliefs enough to let them live their life as they wish. Even if I don’t agree with them.

They both go against someone's deeply held philosophical beliefs and are equally detrimental eating a harmless meat sandwich against your wishes is no different from using compelled language against your wishes.
But if you prefer a different analogy how about demanding that a Muslim recite the lord's prayer because thats what the Christian wishes.

I’m not trans or nb, but I hate being called she. I also hate it when someone uses a nickname of my name. I use ‘they’ all the time in sentences and to talk about someone when they’re not there. Using they is perfectly acceptable. I’m not asking someone to call me ‘he’.

Why do you need to bring this up to a person before they’ve started the job when it’s not even been asked or expected though? This person hasn’t asked for this, it’s all projection and I wouldn’t want a new starter to feel uncomfortable by bringing this up when they’re haven’t asked for it and no team member has taken any offence to it? Putting your projections on how a new starter may or not feel sounds ridiculous to me. It wouldn’t be a nice environment to work in. I would hate someone to do that to me when I haven’t asked for it and they don’t even know me.

Wrong both are being asked to compromise as the gc staff are being told that they cannot use correct sexed pronouns for the nb woman and must use her name instead and the nb woman is being told that she cannot force other people to use her chosen pronouns and will have to accept her name being used instead.
You do understand that not adhering to or centering the wants of a trans or nb person is not discrimination and that claiming that only gc people should compromise their beliefs by using language that goes against their beliefs system is direct belief discrimination.
Basically for something to be a compromise both side need to give up something it can't just all come from 1 side which is what you are arguing for.
It really is irrelevant how comfortable the new start is when it comes to pronoun use or lack of us, as long as nobody intentionally and continuously uses correct sexed pronouns for her when asked not to as that would be bullying. Its would also be bullying for this woman to repeatedly demand that her chosen pronouns are used instead of a compromise of her name

I would … personally avoid calling Jane anything other than Jane,

That would be a micro-aggression. You would be deliberately avoiding the use of any pronoun for Jane. Presumably you’d still be using pronouns for your other colleagues, so Jane would be singled out by being the only one consistently referred to by her name only.

Unless you abandoned the use of pronouns for all of your colleagues, you’d soon find yourself having to answer to your boss or HR for your actions. And if you’re the boss you may find it an expensive choice.

This isn’t an equally weighted fight. No matter how helpful, supportive or accommodating you think you are being, unless you fully capitulate to the demands of the be-pronouned, you’ll always lose.

Your only possible course of action is to refuse outright, citing your own protected beliefs. If you try the halfway-house approach by avoiding Jane’s (and only Jane’s) pronouns altogether you dig a deeper hole for yourself.

Jane may be biologically female but might prefer to go by non-binary pronouns. Why not accommodate that?

Because it’s demanding that people actively go against their instincts - they know Jane is female - and remember to use Jane’s “preferred pronouns”. The demand that people use additional headspace to accommodate her whims, not to mention the fear of being hauled over the coals for getting it wrong.

If Jane wants to be “they/them” then she can refer to herself like that. If other people want to, that’s up to them but she needs not to make demands. She’s not the centre of everyone else’s universe.

We both know that you’re entirely twisting the meaning of what I said there and misquoting. You don’t know if Jane has physical symptoms of past trauma either! Why are your feelings more important than Jane’s? Surely you both deserve respect and inclusion?

How would you deal with this with Jane if it was your workplace? I would (and this is actually relevant to my workplace, so lived experience) personally avoid calling Jane anything other than Jane, therefore not bypassing my own views and beliefs but also still being respectful towards Jane and Jane’s views and beliefs (whilst also not getting into any HR battles). Ergo. We would muddle through.

Ingesting something is in no way the same as a word choice.

I’ve told you I end up with physical symptoms due to past trauma.

You’ve told me I have to ‘muddle through it’.

Right.

Hmmm…maybe you’re onto something…

The inclusion of pronouns in email signatures seems to be next to the name, similar to the inclusion of Mrs in older, more formal correspondence.

blah blah blah
Yours sincerely,
Jane Smith (Mrs)

In reply you’d address the sender as Mrs Smith or Mrs Jane Smith. Perhaps those including pronouns do want them to be used in direct address.

Dear Jane Jones (they/them),

Thank you for your letter…blah blah blah…

Or

Dear They/Them Jones,

Blah blah blah…

Otherwise, what’s the point? If the sender insists on including pronouns it seems reasonable to conclude they might want to be addressed by them! 😂

Harm! Pfffft. I'm a woman, I'm not HARMED if someone calls me "he" either by mistake or even maliciously. I wouldn't even be upset. Its a total non issue because I KNOW who I am. If someone is so fragile in their identity that they perceive so-called misgendering as actual harm, then they are not fit to be let outside alone.

the reality is that your feelings don’t trump theirs or vice versa so if you were working with Jane you’d have to find a way to muddle along. So yes, I would support you but I’d also support Jane. It’s not about being fashionable it’s about being professional and respectful all round. Fashionable!! FFS I’ve stated multiple times that I am GC on this thread so don’t come that one.

Or

“This is Jane, she’s starting on Monday.”
”Lovely to meet you, Jane”
”Um, I use they/them pronouns."
"So you want to be referred to in the third person in your presence?"
"Um...er... no, not really"
"So what's the point then?"

[This conjures up images of John Cleese in the "I want to be known as Loretta" sketch]

The judge was wrong then. And this has since been clarified. Non Binary is NOT a protected characteristic and does not fall under Gender Reassignment. A tribunal now would be compelled to come to a different decision.

The argument is being made throughout this thread that ‘they’ is never used in the singular and/or if it is it must be used with a singular form of the verb and/or when it’s used not one person can understand it only refers to one person. These are clearly nonsense arguments.

I swear a lot. I’ve worked with people I know hate swearing. In those circumstances I think before I speak. Is that an undue burden? Is it an undue burden to not write “as per your previous fucking email” in work correspondence.?

I was just trying to offer some constructive advice. Each case will be different and case law won’t automatically help you. If the person in question happens to experience a culture of micro aggressions when working for the company (and these don’t have to be related to not using pronouns), a body of evidence will be compiled. I’m not saying this will happen and I’m sure it won’t, but if their manager has spoken to them before they’ve even started work and met the team, telling them their coworkers might be affronted by using a perfectly acceptable word without any evidence this is the case, then I don’t think it would cover you in glory. As a manager, it could be argued that the team follow you and the culture you’re setting. If none of your colleagues have even brought this up as a problem, then why are you instigating one?

I say this, as I’ve worked for a company that does have a code of conduct of making people feel safe at work and free of harassment. I have witnessed something similar to this and it was dealt with according to company policies.

I’d hate for anyone who worked for me or alongside me in my team to feel uncomfortable

Would that apply to me?
I feel very uncomfortable around trans/non-binary language, having been subject to vile abuse a few years ago for not knowing what a trans woman is by a bloke who said he was one.
I end up feeling ill and shaking if I have to use trans language because in my experience trans people aren’t afraid to hurt others.

So would you stand up for me, prevent me feeling uncomfortable, and tell the non-binary person that I cannot refer to her as they/them and that she should agree to being referred to by correct pronouns?

Somehow I think not.
My hurt isn’t fashionable enough for you.

No but the Judge saying this indicates that it is open to interpretation not set in law.

ie different judge different out come.

I suspect that until there is a High Court or Supreme Court ruling it will not be final.

But that's why I posted the link to the ACAS guidelines on they / them etc.. Because they have added to it that since the Supreme Court ruling they need to ammend it.

So the only ruling saying an employee "should" wasn't about that but as said up thread being boorish or worse.

It's completely irrelevant when the sex of the person being discussed is KNOWN. in those cases it is correct (and natural) to use the sexed pronoun. Most people do this without thinking and expecting them (unknown person of potentially either sex) to stop and think every time a certain person is referred to is putting an undue burden on them.
It's not fair and it's a ridiculous expectation. It is NOT a normal way of speaking at all as I'm certain you know perfectly well.

Gowers' The Complete Plain Words quotes Thackeray as disagreeing too.

Gowers seems to be of the opinion that the use of they for he or she "is common in speech, and not unknown in serious writing", but he does advise the official writer to avoid it while not condemning it in everyday use.

But what if the new starter feels uncomfortable raising any concerns to you, especially as you’ve brought up that they’re preferred method of address might make people uncomfortable when you don’t have any evidence that this is the case? You could be seen as an instigator (projecting your beliefs when it hasn’t come up as an issue for anyone) rather than a caring manager?