Isla Bumba.20

I would add to this that I think it’s unreasonable that it is the mere act of correctly sexing someone that is targeted here rather than the way it is done/overall environment. Even for those who want to play gender woo it is incredibly difficult to use preferred pronouns when most of your brain is telling you that this is actually a man/woman. Witness all of the misgendering by true believers in the various ETs. Most of us have other stuff to worry about/menopausal brains/actual work to do.

Surely there is the world of difference between someone who shouts and points ‘you’re a man, nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah’ which is pretty unacceptable and someone who is courteous and behaves in ways entirely appropriate for a workplace but misgenders because they are actually thinking about work/they don’t believe in wrong sex pronouns/they keep forgetting/they haven’t the foggiest idea what this person’s pronouns are.

I would hope that while an employer can ask that colleagues are reasonably courteous to each other, they can’t compel speech one way or the other and shouldn’t be disciplining a worker who is polite but doesn’t use preferred pronouns for whatever reason.

I suppose someone could try to argue NB under protected belief.

My point was that the arguments around NB not being a PC are irrelevant as even for those for whom GR is a PC it doesn’t require others to use wrong-sex pronouns.

The PC of GR definitely covers people who wish to be, and are presenting as, the opposite sex but it still doesn’t require others to use false pronouns.

Thanks for this OP! I wrote a long post about this last week and then lost the post and gave up.

I was aghast at the factual inaccuracies/errors any my take was:

• NB is not clearly included as a “gender reassignment” category. The idea that an employee could be compelled to use they/them didn’t seem clear cut. Just like if they’d requested zie/zay or other terms which could be considered a personal delusion. For example if your colleague is David Ike are you obliged to respect him as the son of God? No because although there is politeness, there are limits.
• GC is a protected belief so the older colleague is protected and cant be compelled to use pronouns. As others have said an acceptable work around would be to use a name but forcing the issue would be problematic for an employer either way.
• Age is a protected characteristic. Whether the EA or bullying, it seemed to me that the age of the colleague was viewed negatively and there could be an argument to say that it is harder for older employees to make this cognitive shift for a colleague who was originally known as one sex but then wants to be referred to in another way - while doing nothing to change their appearance. It’s not easy to do even if you’re the most ardent supporter - cf Jane Russell and Isla Bumba in the Peggie Tribunal.
• IMO using the term “boomer” as a pejorative term seems to me to be bullying (as well as totally inaccurate as it’s the kids of boomers who are seniors in the workplace these days). If carrot top is bullying then boomer definitely is a problem term.
• The advice to the colleague who had supposedly written in was encouraging them to get involved - that sounded dangerous. The advice failed to mention that this colleague could be at risk of perpetuating discrimination against the older staffer and expose the employer to litigation risk. Potentially damaging to future prospects at the company but also the could be named as a respondent - it’s a highly contested area and test cases are actively being sought. The colleague should be asked how strongly they feel about this issue snd what personal risk they’d like to take getting involved.

The whole thing was so out of date and poorly done I wondered it was actually published as rage-bait for GC clicks?!

It’s worth remembering that the person complaining of the harassment doesn’t have to have or even be perceived to have the PC in question.

It's worth remembering it's all a load of bollocks, there are about 72 recognized 'preferred pronouns', all though not by anyone who's remotely connected to reality. If I end up working with someone who expects me to refer to them as Qui/Quem/Quis they've got fat chance of me conceding to their wishes, especially as they won't be around to hear how I refer to them.

It irritates me equally that people "older than" always seem to be called 'boomer'. They are most likely gen X, as there are few 'boomers' still in the workplace. I remember my birth year flipping from gen x to boomer at some point an thinking 'huh, my boomer brother is 16 years my senior, and technically could have been my father if not for the incestuous connotations. Really, 60s born folks are no longer baby boomers, but seem to invariably lumped into that category, going so far as even the late 60s early 70s born to be included.

I mean there are live court cases/tribunals discussing exactly this kind of thing, right now.

There is no settled answer either way - you can't say it's illegal/prohibited/forbidden to use pronouns other than those requested and you can't say that you can call someone whatever you want.

Context, history, etc, all are relevant. And yes, many people who say they are nonbinary consider they have the pc of gender reassignment. I don't think that would hold up in court, but tbh most HR depts are all about trying to stop things going to court in the first place.

In a workplace context, people have to rub along with others with very different views.

no because the protected characteristic isn't 'trans identifying' (and most NB people wouldn't consider themselves 'trans identifying anyway) it's 'gender reassignment,' which is very specifically defined " covering anyone proposing, undergoing, or having undergone a process to reassign their sex."

It’s worth remembering that the person complaining of the harassment doesn’t have to have or even be perceived to have the PC in question. And the harassment doesn’t have to be “because of” a PC. If choice of pronoun usage is related to GR (and also the PC of sex) which arguably it is, then pronoun usage as a form of harassment could be said to be “related to” the idea of gender reassignment, or for that matter, even sex.

Am I “sure”? No. But an tribunal judge who wants to punish someone for being an ass to a colleague might accept the argument.

The thing is that outside of the workplace the NB person isn’t going to be able to control how people refer to them. Unless they walk around with a big banner, most who don’t know them will just sex them appropriately. Trans people do tend to have some signifiers whether it be the way they dress or look but NBs don’t. Somehow they are going to have to develop some resilience or they are going to be constantly in a state of distress.

Does 'you're a stinky poo pants and everyone hates you' go above Nazi?

Yep. It all comes down to hugely expensive and difficult employment tribunals. The rules are vague or dont exist. It all must be thrashed out by lawyers.

It is never ‘would be’ - it is ‘could be’. All ETs have to work around circumstances and context like in any type of policy and law.

https://www.acas.org.uk/bullying-at-work

But the HR person does seem to be conflating bullying/harassment with discrimination.

Pretty much anything can be counted as bullying and harassment in the workplace, depending on circumstances and context.

This.

At this point, Boomer just means "someone older than me holding a viewpoint I don't like". I think the scale goes:
Good Person Like Me
Boomer
Karen (like a Boomer, but worse cos female)
Bigot
Nazi

Note the lack of neutral ground and repent, motherfuckers!

That's an interesting perspective, I hadn't thought about it in that way..

The people bullied out of their jobs or into tribunals seem to be mostly? entirely? fairly pragmatic about getting along with trans colleagues/ trans ally employer, but they have limits, e.g. sharing changing rooms with members of the opposite sex.

An example of this absolutism is the man who was let go from his prisoner transfer job although he did not insist on using 'correct sex' pronouns, he was willing to use 'they' when referring to trans prisoners.
That wasn't enough, he had to use their preferred pronouns or there's the door..

You make a good point, TheywontletmehavethenameIwant -
who is being unreasonable and bullying?

HR is wrong, NB is not covered by the Equalities Act, and the act was never intended to be used as a blunt weapon against people.

I would argue that bullying and harassment go both ways, demanding people refer to you in a way they are not comfortable with is also bully and harassment, especially if you use the company's no nothing HR Department to enforce you views on your co-workers.

I think one would have to be careful. The EA2010 frames discrimination as “because of” a protected characteristic, and harassment as “unwanted conduct related to” a protected characteristic. Wouldn’t you say that correctly sexing someone trans-identifying contrary to their wishes is “related to” that protected characteristic?

It wouldn’t be illegal discrimination. Bullying and harassment when not linked to a protected characteristic is not illegal discrimination and would generally come under constructive dismissal- I.e. it isn’t that the people using she/her are breaking the law, it’s that the work place needs enforced policies that stop people from being bullied.

harassment can be a criminal offense in its own right but pretty sure what is described in that link would not come close to meeting the requirement.

Yes, its the language used by judge in the forstater ruling so I suggest that you take it up with him.
We have the right not to use someone's chosen pronouns but we can't just call them anything we want, using a trans or NB persons name is a reasonable compromise that protects us from being accused of discrimination or bullying and/or harassment

Well your example is extreme and accurate however it has nothing to do with this situation where all the staff are using she/her in meetings and to this woman's face when asked not to.

As to which law i was talking about the equality act. Regardless of whether NB falls under the characteristic of GR or not intentionally repeatedly correctly sexing somebody who is covered by it would be illegal discrimination and would be bullying and/or harassment unless in circumstances where the person's sex is relevant such as your example.

Came to say this! Idiots!