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

The EJ Benson in Lockwood said that he wasn't applying Taylor because the process of reassignment at the core of GR has to be both from one sex and to another, and then went on to say "We have carefully considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in For Women Scotland and believe that there is nothing in the judgment which suggests that our view is incorrect." (I think you're thinking of FWS, as GLP had not yet been heard.)

Reading carefully what the Judge was saying is that he was making his own decision as to the interpretation of the law, and pointing out that this was in any event not contrary to FWS. He was not saying that he found FWS a precedent on this question that had to be followed or that FWS answered the question at issue.

I think that could be construed as singling them out. You’re making that person compromise when you don’t even know if it will be necessary. You’re not showing equal respect as you’re not doing the same to the others (asking them to compromise by using a perfectly adequate word in order to make a new starter more comfortable). I think you’re making an issue out of something that hasn’t and hopefully will never happen.

Just let the new starter introduce themself how they want and if anyone has an issue they can come to you later and discuss it and talk to both parties about reaching a compromise. You could involve HR in order to cover your back and everyone else’s in that circumstance.

No, what I will do (if indeed it arises) is to chat this through with the new start and agree a compromise that will take account of all protected characteristics. It can be very difficult to declare a 'side' here, possibly more so if you have GC views and don't know how that will be perceived by your manager, and so I will acknowledge and show equal respect for all views from a legal pov (repeating the last 3 words for emphasis).

The EJ Benson in Lockwood said that he wasn't applying Taylor because the process of reassignment at the core of GR has to be both from one sex and to another, and then went on to say "We have carefully considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in For Women Scotland and believe that there is nothing in the judgment which suggests that our view is incorrect." (I think you're thinking of FWS, as GLP had not yet been heard.)

Reading carefully what the Judge was saying is that he was making his own decision as to the interpretation of the law, and pointing out that this was in any event not contrary to FWS. He was not saying that he found FWS a precedent on this question that had to be followed or that FWS answered the question at issue.

No the judge did mention the jaguar land rover case and said it had been superseded (I cant remember the exact wording) in the high crt ruling against the glp.
That said its really moot as nb isn't recognised in UK law anyway

no. No it is not and you know it.

Surely you'd just say "sorry no I haven't seen them" rather than repeating "the receptionist"? If the question was "have you seen Lisa?" you wouldn't reply, "sorry I haven't seen Lisa" would you? You'd say "sorry I haven't seen her".

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.

There has been case law on this. I'd look up the Lister case, an employee refused to use They/Them pronouns and was lawfully sacked over it.

Thanks everyone - some really good advice and some interesting opinions.

If the p word arises (and if it doesn't, grand), I will say something along the lines of that she or I can put forward her request but that there may be people in the team who may feel uncomfortable with it, and suggest that using her first name in her absence or 'you/your/you're' would seem a reasonable compromise. Does that sound OK from a legal pov all round?

What if Jane decides Jane is a dog 🐶?

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

By demanding other people abandon the rules of grammar and adhere to Jane’s chosen pronouns, Jane IS imposing her mindset on other people against their will.

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.

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.