Prison officer who refused to use trans pronouns loses appeal against sacking

Just a small point, but this isn't the prison service. It's a private company that is contracted to transport prisoners.

But to take your point about prisons, it depends.

The prison service in Scotland is separate from the prison service in England & Wales.

The prison service in England & Wales essentially has rules that say that if a prisoner has a GRC then they are to be recorded as the sex shown on the GRC. In the absence of a GRC then the sex at birth is recorded.

In contrast, the current Scottish Prison Service Operational Guidance is very much more about self ID. It says at Section 3.7:

"Where there is any evidence that the person in custody has begun transitioning to live in a different gender from that assigned at birth then a staff member must enter the person in custody on the PR2 computer system as the affirmed gender they are living in and record them as having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment as outlined above."
[Emphasis included in the original]

And, generally, unless there are very specific reasons not to, then they will be searched in line with their self reported gender:

"Upon admission, a transgender individual should be searched in line with their affirmed gender identity unless the individual requests to be searched in line with their sex assigned at birth and/or unless there are overriding risks or concerns, including to the health, safety or welfare of the individual or staff carrying out the search or to the security or good order of the prison."

The Daily Record reported on a dangerous trans-identifying male prisoner by the name of Andrew Burns, now called Tiffany Scott, and female prison officers are forced to search him rather than the male prison officers:

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/female-prison-officers-ordered-strip-29129967

Also, if they ever take part in compulsory drug testing (there can be various different reasons for this, eg those prisoners in a workshop where they have access to tools that may be dangerous) then they pee in sight of a female prison officer.

https://www.sps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-02/Management%20of%20Transgender%20Prisoner%20Operational%20Guidance%202024.pdf

Maya was definitely a bit more clear cut as she wasn’t doing this in her workplace.

is it just me who worries for the prison officers safety in the prison going around saying stuff like this?

I agree to a point but they’re equally not going to want someone who doesn’t understand when deescalation comes before yourself. That’s the main point of these kind of jobs. You have to be this blank, neutral safe person for everyone. Additionally, they equally will have policies to guarantee his safety and if he’s not sticking to them or saying stuff that could cause violence or riots they can’t let him because they will be responsible and he could sue them.
its a bit of mess isn’t it? It will be interesting to see what is said if it goes to appeal.

The company on the other hand insisted on nothing but the prisoners' preferred pronouns,

Of course it is Never Going To Happen™ now that a prisoner will come up with bizarre or grossly offensive "preferred pronouns" in order to subject prison staff to ridicule or to sexually degrade female staff in particular.

Considering some of the Prison Officers who have been sacked for inappropriate relationships with inmates, smuggling in mobiles and drugs, and so on, they'd want to employ someone with a bit of integrity.

I find it unreasonable that when he expressed his protected beliefs about sex/gender, he did NOT say he would insist on using the sex-based pronouns to a trans prisoner. That could be provocative and unhelpful in situations where the prisoner was threatening to become violent, and could be seen as 'disrespectful' according to the company's policy.

He did not insist on his right to exercise his protected gender-critical beliefs to the letter: he said he would use 'they/them', which seems to be a reasonable compromise, it is neutral enough not be provocative, and would appear to satisfy the company's policy about treating trans prisoners with respect.

The company on the other hand insisted on nothing but the prisoners' preferred pronouns, rejected his suggested compromise, and sacked him.

It's sending out a message that employment in that company is restricted to people who agree 100% with using language which many people disagree with, whether for ethical reasons due to their gender critical believes, or because they just have difficulty using language that is factually wrong.

They must have lots of really good candidates to choose from if they can discard the ones who are happy to compromise and use they/them, but not to use wrong-sex pronouns...

I hadn’t read the full judgement before I read the case . I think the thing is the filling in of the form and the following of policy and was there a potential reasonable adjustment that could be made? I am sure the removal from the training session would just be noise at any appeal .

To me the form is now following the SC decision is widely out of date. If the form had boxes for both sex and gender maybe there wouldn’t be so much of an issue for him to fill in the form. You are still recording the sex which is necessary for searches. But recognising you are dealing with a transgender person.

The company’s position was there was no reasonable adjustment to not following policy by not being in charge of any transgender person and needing to fill in the form .

I think the confusion and contradictions about searching transmen and transwomen could have arisen from the peasoup
of language on how you refer to a TIM or TIF.

How much will this have to do with this all happening before the SC decision and the claim being made after it I wonder.

At appeal could he still he lose his job but the prison service told to change their guidance? I could see that happening.

I suspect this will go to appeal - not sure the employer is on very solid ground here….

Agree with this . I was reading the Maya Forester case again a couple of days ago. The first case where GC beliefs were protected.
She Had her contract not renewed due to the tweeets she was doing in her personal time . So whilst some people may not have liked them they were not interfering with her work .

The judge at the appeal said that didn’t amount to harassment and she was entitled to have them and not be in effect sacked . But at the same time he said Trans were entitled not to be harassed under their protected characteristics. So depending on what he said to whom and how often and importantly the effect, will affect which way this goes if he appeals .

This is thorny. No you can’t force me to say alluakbar but equally I can’t go around telling someone I disagree with their beliefs. Professional government roles usually come with the professional standards of not enforcing your beliefs on others. Eg teachers are heavily discouraged from sharing their political beliefs, discussing their own sexuality in depth, enforcing religious beliefs onto the children. They could argue that he is not being neutral around vulnerable people which the role requires.
im not sure which way this will go. It will depend on what he has said and to whom and how often

"But posting anywas as it is a new (3 April 26) news article."

I think I understand why they printed this article, the Employment Tribunal judgment was just published four days ago.

A link to it is here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69cbbcb62d120d9d5ec0f318/8001392.2025_Judgment_-_Mr_D_Toshack_v_GEOAmey_Limited.pdf

"...if there is guidance saying pander to men who say they are women to avoid violence"

Within the prison service (or at least for England and Wales) I don't believe there is any such guidance. This appears to be something just from this particular private company that was employed to do transfers.

Prison Rules are typically laid out in Prison Service Orders (PSOs) or Prison Service Instructions (PSIs). For example, there is PSO 4460 on how much prisoners must be paid when they are working.

If a prisoner is studying, working or training then they must receive at least £4 per week. In reality, prisoners can earn between £10 and £25 per week if they are working full time (the amount will depend on what they are doing).

If there are no jobs, education or training places available to a prisoner (or they refuse to engage) then there is a payment of £2.50 per week (50p per day).

Prisoners who have reached the state pension age and who do not work or take part in training receive £3.25 minimum per week (some prisons pay higher amounts to retired prisoners).
.

But, to go back to your original point, there is HMPPS operational guidance on trans prisoners, but it does predate FWS.

Although the date given is 2024 it essentially dates back to 2019.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-care-and-management-of-individuals-who-are-transgender

The Care and Management of Individuals who are Transgender:
Operational Guidance
HMPPS Transgender Offender Team
Prison Operational Policy and Delivery Group
Version 3.0
November 2024

The guidance here goes into a lot of detail, covering both risks that the trans-identifying offender may be facing from others and also risks that this offender may pose to others. The guidance says:

"A proper assessment of risk is paramount for the management of all individuals subject to custodial and community sentences. The management of individuals who are transgender, particularly in custodial and AP settings, must seek to protect both the welfare and rights of the individual, and the welfare and rights of others in custody around them. These two considerations must be considered fully and balanced against each other."
[emphasis included in the original]

.

However, going back to the Toshack v GEOAmery case, the guidance here clearly states that were the offender has a GRC then that must be used in place of sex:

"Where legal gender is determined, the legal gender must be recorded on all case administration system where ‘sex’ (male or female) is required."

But where there isn't a GRC, then sex is to be recorded accurately:

"Where legal gender cannot be determined, staff must record a transgender individual’s sex recorded at birth on all administration systems where ‘sex’ is required."

Is it about avoiding violence though? The trans trope (they change depending on which is most/least convenient) that might be playing out here is most marginalised and vulnerable. His prospective employer might be fearful of a suicide attempt (another trope). I'm going to assume even unsuccessful suicide attempts warrant some sort of inquiry. It was Toshack on the form with the neutral pronouns that did it.

Exactly. Two things wrong there:

1. That violent men must be pandered to in the hope of conciliating them. This doesn’t solve anything but encourages other thugs to try intimidatory behaviour.
2. That anyone’s job should depend on colluding with people’s delusions, especially when those delusions are antisocial.

All these analogies about vegans and meat seem like red herrings.

Indeed!

A vegan has an ethical belief that a meat-eater does not share. If the restaurant in question isn't explicitly stating that it upholds vegan beliefs, the only assumption anyone working there can make is that it will sell meat and other animal products. So a vegan who applies for a job there is an utter numpty for not validating this in the first place.

The prison service doesn't have "validating prisoners' gender identity belief" as its core purpose. Therefore anyone joining as a prison officer would reasonably assume that its policies would not require active demonstration of this belief. To get there and find otherwise requires careful navigation. It sounds like the ex-employee did a great job of attempting this. He wasn't the utter numpty here.

Exactly. The whole point, well good outcome of Forstater was that employer had to balance individual held beliefs as being of equal worth.

I would (respectfully of course 😁) challenge this. It's not about balancing beliefs as being of equal worth. What needs to be balanced IMO is a) the right to believe that everyone has a gender identity and b) the right to not believe this. It's a subtle yet critical distinction.

Point b does not require anyone to hold an alternative belief. If we see it as "balance of belief" it means that "gender identity belief" and "gender critical belief" are equal. This becomes particularly important in safeguarding situations, such as schools.... because balancing everything as beliefs makes safeguarding impossible. It would mean that, on paper, a child who believes themselves to have a gender identity that differs from their sex is equally as safe as a child who believes that sex is immutable. It forces staff to look at safeguarding through an equality of beliefs lens, rather than relying on known facts.

If instead, the balance is belief in gender identity vs lack of belief in gender identity, it brings everything in line with the Nolan Principles to which all public bodies need to adhere re objectivity. This makes safeguarding a lot easier because we're now dealing with objective facts, not a balance of beliefs.

By extension, it also makes free speech issues like the one in this tribunal a lot simpler, as the argument is so much clearer: nobody should be forced to use the language of a belief that they do not hold. The right to believe in something only needs to be balanced with the right to not believe in it.

Edited for punctuation.

All these analogies about vegans and meat seem like red herrings.

(Someone had to say it!)

I'm with BonfireLady · 15 March 2026 22:45 on this.

Oops! And Hegehogforshort.

A better comparison would be a requirement to pray in the course of ones employment duties or say praise be to Jesus, to a bible holding prisoner, before transporting them to a prison or court.

This ⬆️

It's his lack of belief in gender identity (and the management having a policy that forces him to speak and act as if he has one) that's key here. In this tribunal, his protected right to not believe in gender identity is more pertinent than this protected right to believe in god. He's not expressing a ("gender critical" or Christian) belief, he's exercising his legal right to not believe (in gender identity). This one ⬇️

https://x.com/anyabike/status/1749777661855940901?s=20

Edited to add that possession of a GRC wouldn't make any difference here. If someone had a GRC, you could still exercise your right to not believe in gender identity by avoiding pronouns - or indeed by using sex-based pronouns, as long as a) it wasn't deemed to have met a harassment threshold or b) you hadn't learned about their sex in an official employment capacity.

I don't think any of the comparative situations as described are adequate as a defence to his sacking.

He stated that he would avoid using pronouns by using the prisoners name instead, thus side stepping the issue.

There is no justifiable reason to require a person to refer to someone else on a form, or outside of the persons presence, by a sexed pronouns that is materially incorrect with the exception, at a guess, where someone is in possession of a GRC.

the point of the Forstarter ruling was that one could not suffer a detriment due to an expressed belief.

A better comparison would be a requirement to pray in the course of ones employment duties or say praise be to Jesus, to a bible holding prisoner, before transporting them to a prison or court.

As much as I hate the pronoun nonsense. I do see the point of the judgement. Employers can set what’s expected of staff and if they don’t want to do it because of a belief it might not be the job for them.
I can think of a few cases in similar veins where the person had protected beliefs but the employer was still allowed to set standards although none to do with specific speech requirements. There was a case where someone wanted to wear a cross but it was against uniform requirements. Someone working at a check out didn’t want to sell pork.