Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Isla Bumba.20

34 replies

newyearnoeu · 17/04/2026 19:45

Another example of an 'HR consultant' who apparently doesn't have a clue about the actual law.

Boomer colleagues won’t use a coworker’s ‘they’ pronouns – what should I do?

Everyone has to use 'they' pronouns for NB colleagues and it is BREAKING THE LAW if you don't. She even says " Under the Equality Act 2010, if you deliberately or repeatedly misgender someone, especially after they’ve corrected you multiple times, then this could constitute harassment or discrimination, related to the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment'

Except even I know that being NB has NO legal basis in law and definitely doesn't come under the EA definition of 'gender reassignment.' How could it, if the whole point of being NB is that you don't have 1 set gender to reassign!

I find it terrifying actual professionals are still preaching this completely inaccurate view. Bad enough if she'd just expressed her opinion that colleagues have to respect NB pronouns but to try and scare them into obedience by lying about the law is so deeply unprofessional.

She's not even just a HR professional - she owns her own HR consulting company! What else is she completely misrepresenting to her clients?

OP posts:
Soontobe60 · 17/04/2026 22:47

Hoardasurass · 17/04/2026 22:36

Correct, but she is correct that its bullying and harassment just wrong about the equality act.
Implying that you can willfully and repeatedly correctly sex someone with no consequences is as bad as Implying that you must comply with demanded pronouns. Both are equally wrong in the law

Show quote history

Wilfully and repeatedly correctly sex someone? Have you heard yourself?
Thats what happens to babies when they are born - sometimes well before birth. They are wilfully and correctly sexed.

PriOn1 · 17/04/2026 22:42

Hoardasurass · 17/04/2026 22:36

Correct, but she is correct that its bullying and harassment just wrong about the equality act.
Implying that you can willfully and repeatedly correctly sex someone with no consequences is as bad as Implying that you must comply with demanded pronouns. Both are equally wrong in the law

Show quote history

Which law? Repeatedly using correct sex pronouns for a man invading a women’s toilet or shower area at work would be entirely reasonable. Whether correctly sexing someone in their absence would be bullying has yet to be ascertained.

Hoardasurass · 17/04/2026 22:41

newyearnoeu · 17/04/2026 22:32

did you actually read either the link or my post?

It was the fact that the HR 'expert' specifically said that misgendering them would be a breach of the EA I was so annoyed by. That's not an 'assumption' that's just being able to read. The 'protected characteristic of GR' is a specifically and legally defined term which doesn't cover a) non binary people or b) trans people self ID-ing without any other steps.

If she'd left it as it could be seen as bullying/harassment that's one thing but what it absolutely is not is a breach of the EA!

Show quote history

NB has been classed as covered by GR in judgements and that it isn't in others.
So whether it is covered by GR or not has still to be clarified in the higher crts even though it is not covered by a GRC.
Unfortunately until a case of GR discrimination against a NB person is taken beyond a 1st tier crt its still a gray area of law.

HolidayHattie · 17/04/2026 22:39

Missing the point somewhat, but since when have people currently in their 40s been boomers?

Hoardasurass · 17/04/2026 22:36

NumberTheory · 17/04/2026 22:30

The HR consultant was still incorrect to state that doing so was illegal under the equality act. She should have pointed out that deliberately upsetting someone could be considered work place bullying and dealt with under those policies.

Show quote history

Correct, but she is correct that its bullying and harassment just wrong about the equality act.
Implying that you can willfully and repeatedly correctly sex someone with no consequences is as bad as Implying that you must comply with demanded pronouns. Both are equally wrong in the law

Original poster
newyearnoeu · 17/04/2026 22:32

Hoardasurass · 17/04/2026 22:18

I'm afraid that you are wrong in your assumption.

Something doesn't have to be covered under the equality act to fall under workplace bullying rules, an example of this would be calling a redhead carrot top would not be discrimination under the equality act but it would be bullying and/or harassment under workplace policies.
Whilst NB is not recognised in law in the UK and nobody needs to use this person's chosen pronouns, repeatedly using pronouns for her that she has asked you not to is bullying and/or harassment. To avoid this you just use the person's name same as you would for a man or woman who wants the wrong sexed pronouns.

did you actually read either the link or my post?

It was the fact that the HR 'expert' specifically said that misgendering them would be a breach of the EA I was so annoyed by. That's not an 'assumption' that's just being able to read. The 'protected characteristic of GR' is a specifically and legally defined term which doesn't cover a) non binary people or b) trans people self ID-ing without any other steps.

If she'd left it as it could be seen as bullying/harassment that's one thing but what it absolutely is not is a breach of the EA!

OP posts:
NumberTheory · 17/04/2026 22:30

Hoardasurass · 17/04/2026 22:18

I'm afraid that you are wrong in your assumption.

Something doesn't have to be covered under the equality act to fall under workplace bullying rules, an example of this would be calling a redhead carrot top would not be discrimination under the equality act but it would be bullying and/or harassment under workplace policies.
Whilst NB is not recognised in law in the UK and nobody needs to use this person's chosen pronouns, repeatedly using pronouns for her that she has asked you not to is bullying and/or harassment. To avoid this you just use the person's name same as you would for a man or woman who wants the wrong sexed pronouns.

The HR consultant was still incorrect to state that doing so was illegal under the equality act. She should have pointed out that deliberately upsetting someone could be considered work place bullying and dealt with under those policies.

Hoardasurass · 17/04/2026 22:18

I'm afraid that you are wrong in your assumption.

Something doesn't have to be covered under the equality act to fall under workplace bullying rules, an example of this would be calling a redhead carrot top would not be discrimination under the equality act but it would be bullying and/or harassment under workplace policies.
Whilst NB is not recognised in law in the UK and nobody needs to use this person's chosen pronouns, repeatedly using pronouns for her that she has asked you not to is bullying and/or harassment. To avoid this you just use the person's name same as you would for a man or woman who wants the wrong sexed pronouns.

LeftieRightsHoarder · 17/04/2026 20:06

This is ‘Stonewall law’, isn’t it? Totally incorrect, but widely believed because transactivists have been tirelessly spreading this propaganda for so many years.

It’s appalling that people claiming to be experts are misrepresenting the law like this.