To think that non-binary candidates are more unlikely to be offered a job?

[GinnyPiggie]

I have a non-binary child in their twenties and they are really struggling to secure work.

It might be unfair of me, but I really think that in presenting themselves as non-binary, they are going to struggle to be offered a job with the vast majority of employers. Yes this might be pure discrimination but personally I'd be worried about HR issues and getting sued for saying the wrong thing.

AIBU to think that if you have a range of good candidates, you are going to be reluctant to hire a non-binary candidate because of the potential for issues in the office?

You've already had substantive responses to this.

This is an odd, non binding decision which goes beyond the actual law and if it has any effect on HR departments or hiring managers at all it's likely to make them think twice about hiring a non binary identifying person in the first place.

That established nothing. First tier Employment Tribunal doesn't make law.

The Equality Act doesn't protect non-binary identities — partly because no one has the foggiest idea what non-binary means.

People are or are not non-binary. It's not something people are "attracted to."

It's reallly not much of a mental burden to use the correct pronouns, and it's an age thing. Younger people really don't have an issue with it. I remember people complaining they couldn't pronounce ethnic minority names and complaining about it. Just don't make a big deal of it - NB don't.

Plenty of disabled people need accommodation, too. I have a deaf colleague who lip reads, so I have to face him when I am talking to him. I assume that would too much for you, too?

Denying reality isn't really a quality I'm looking for when trying to fill a job role.

Would I never hire someone non-binary? I wouldn't say that, but it's not going to fill me with confidence, and it means I'll likely be looking very closely for other signs that they're not entirely on this planet.

What do you think being non binary means?

Yes, if that case was heard now — now the judiciary has come to its senses and woken up — things would be very different. As you say it was an eccentric, non-binding decision that means nothing.

Absolutely this.

The level of navel gazing that must go into declaring yourself non binary is amazing.

At best, what apps daughter is, is a "gender non conforming" female. In every single measurable way she is a woman. Not subscribing to stereotypical performative acts of femininity doesn't make her any less so and if it was my child I'd have made that clear before they entered adulthood thinking that everyone else in the world cares about their Tumblr identified persona.

People are or are not non-binary.

So....the non-binary people are part of a binary classification system?

very serious here @DadJoke because I really am trying to get this, please give me some examples of reasonable adjustments required for non-binary colleagues. I’m really struggling, some examples would help.

But why talk about preferred pronouns in this situation ? They are face to face with someone so the pronoun used would be "you" not he/she/they. Your DC might come off as being more interested in genderwarfare than in the actual work..

It's very difficult for all young people to get a job. It could just be that they are never the best candidate.

But how much are they drawing attention to their gender identity during the selection process? With most protected characteristics one would neither confirm nor deny that attribute until the job has been awarded. With the few that can't be missed, both the interviewee and the interview panel would be expected to work on the assumption that the presence or absence of the protected characteristic is totally irrelevant to the decision of whether this person is suitable for the job.

I have interviewed hundreds of people and have never once needed to know their gender identity or used third person pronouns in their presence, nor have I been generally aware of most other PCs they may have. I typically then appoint about a third of the people I interview and when they start work I then get told if I need to know, if someone is gender-diverse or has religious obligations that need to be taken into consideration. And I occasionally find out about their sexuality as relationships form among the group of employees, etc etc.

Most people are not sexist. They will not be assuming that your DC fits the gender stereotypes associated with their body physiology. They will not make any assumptions about gender at all if they don't mention it. I hope your DC isn't assuming that everyone on the interview panels they have spoken to must be default have a binary gender identity unless told otherwise. That would be quite sexist.

This

Does anyone want to have a bash at what being 'non-binary' actually is/entails? Apart from being a female who calls herself Kevin. I have a traditionally feminine name but hate dresses, skirts and high heels. Should I be declaring myself as non-binary in order to make myself more special? Or just a boring female who rejects some sex based stereotyping?

It's a nonsensical made up concept but if anyone could provide an intelligent, coherent explanation I'm all ears. Or eyes.

I can understand some people trying to identify out of their sex for a variety of reasons.

What is pertinent is how it will impact on others in the workplace.

Will they be demanding changes in language, perception, facilities, services?

1. Jobs are hard to come by and hard to get.
2. Employers will therefore fill their posts with the best fit.
3. People with NB identity who declare this upfront are making their potential employer work right from the outset ("No! Ignore the attention of your eyes! I am they/them!") and are disadvantaging themselves.
4. So yes, of course employers are going to prioritise other candidates, though I am sure it is not explicitly said.

And that is quite apart from their own private (and anecdotally very widespread) views of non-binary being a complete nonsense. There is a stereotype of NB people being uber-sensitive and self-absorbed, not something you would want to touch with a bargepole as an employer.

I’d have no issues at all
employing a non binary person. But I would have issues employing someone who announced themselves as such. It has nothing to do with the workplace and is none of my business, but would make me think they might be a pita.

'It's reallly not much of a mental burden to use the correct pronouns,'

Great. The correct pronouns being she for female and he for male.

Spot on.

Yep, and it's actually really important that people in OPs daughter's position are aware of this. It's harmful for people like @DadJoke to bullshit about and misrepresent the law on the issue, and make them think they've got protections that they don't.

The main thing it does is signal that if you hire a non binary identifying person you are going to have to be constantly on your guard because every single bloody day there will be hundreds of potential opportunities for the person to be upset or offended and claim discrimination and harassment so it's higher risk than not giving them a job in the first place (because discrimination in the hiring process is almost impossible to prove).

Actually I think that’s an oversimplification of the ruling. Taylor won by virtue of ‘having the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment” (section 7 of the EqA). The claimant fell within the definition of being a person who “is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.”’ So this does not mean that all persons who identify as Non-Binary are actually protected under the law as a result of this ruling, just those who have ‘proposed to undergo/have undergone’ a process of transitioning.

Many NBs simply dress in a non-gendered way, so would have to expressly notify their employer of their transitioning from ‘cis’ to ‘trans’ (as Taylor did) to be sure of the same protections?

I understand where you’re coming from. The distinction between non-binary people and others who don’t conform to traditional gender stereotypes can definitely seem unclear at times.

Essentially, non-binary refers to a specific identity that falls outside the male-female binary. While many people might express themselves in ways that challenge gender norms—like wearing clothes typically associated with the opposite gender or having interests that don’t align with traditional expectations—non-binary individuals identify as neither exclusively male nor female, or as a mix of both.

This identity is more than just appearance or behavior; it’s about how they see themselves and want to be recognized. Names and pronouns are a big part of that—non-binary folks often use gender-neutral pronouns like “they/them” to reflect their identity. So, while there are many ways people can break gender norms, non-binary is a distinct category that represents a particular experience of gender that doesn’t fit into the traditional binary framework.

I hope that clears things up a bit.

It might be unfair of me, but I really think that in presenting themselves as non-binary, they are going to struggle to be offered a job with the vast majority of employers. Yes this might be pure discrimination but personally I'd be worried about HR issues and getting sued for saying the wrong thing

Absolutely the opposite. All levels of government, institutions and corporations now want to tick boxes to prove that they are ‘employers of diversity’. So, yep, gender diverse people are welcomed with open arms. The exceptions may be small scale employers who are never going to be ranked or held to task.

A few years back DH was made redundant. Applied to many jobs, no luck. I told him to pick a gender diverse box on the job application, and bingo, got interviews for every single thing he applied for. Probably a big disappointment when he turned up as he looks very much like a man, dresses like a man etc. The brilliant thing is they can’t question you on it. It allowed him to get a foot in the door for interviews and he got several offers.

I've only read the OP's posts and a few that she was replying to so this point may have been made but one thing that might grate is the idea of NB with a deliberately clearly male name. That sounds more like transman. There are plenty of gender-neutral names (like Sam, as someone mentioned earlier) which as well as being gender-neutral would take away the need to performatively demand pronoun usage at a job interview. Choosing an obviously opposite-sex name but then NB identity is liable to set off some alarm bells on the HR side. If they were the best candidate, I'd still offer them a job though, in the knowledge that if they really are difficult to work with, we'd almost certainly know that in plenty of time to usher them out the door.