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?

Its a burden to mis-sex people. It really is not that much of a mental burden to correctly-sex people. We're not the ones using incorrect pronouns. They are! Asking people to mis-sex someone is incredibly jarring and takes mental work akin to this:
Yikes, sorry, the image came up bigger and more distorted than I intended and I can't fix it.

I'd be concerned about receiving any CV which declared someone's protected characteristic, or someone who declared it in an interview (unless it was pertinent to the role or asking for RAs). Same as it would be inappropriate to ask an interviewee about this. Leave it out of the hiring process unless it is pertinent to the role (e.g. you are applying for a role with sex-specific exemption, or a religious role etc).

Such a shame that do many people in a position to recruit have such a low opinion of their colleagues as to handle.someonw different to themselves, projecting much!

Is this AI? Also, it hasn't cleared anything up at all.

They would need to be so much better than any other candidate for me to risk someone who may be decisive when I can easily pick someone else.

I would also assume the candidate would be difficult. (Not saying the assumption is right - but just being honest with the OP).

Honestly (and I would deny this outside of MN) unless a non binary candidate was stand out then I wouldn't employ them.
I would think that they would sue for being accidently misgendered or similar.
Non Binary doesn't really suggest resilience to me
Sorry OP

It's not "bullshit." Non-binary are protected under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. This is strong case law. No one has challenged it and it is likely to be persuasive since there are no other cases on this point.

Any employer who thinks otherwise is likely to get a nasty wake-up call.

This.
Their identity has Sweet nothing to do with the job probably and just marks them out as being exhausting! No one really gives a shit about an identity what they do care about it is it detracting from the work.

That's inaccurate, @DadJoke

NB isn't a protected characteristic, only gender reassignment is, and since NB change only their pronouns and hair colour (it seems), it doesn't come under any PC.

Gender reassignment refers to a specific protection for people who have undergone specific processes. Not just anyone who declares they're now someone or something else.

They probably have a slightly easier time of it than a male bodied NB person but yes, they are making it harder for themselves by making their identity the thing that an interviewer remembers them for rather than their interview performance.

I'd drop the pronouns from their intro and only offer the NB explanation for their name if asked. It may get some peoples backs up, same as I wouldn't mention my marital status, sexual orientation, political or religious views up in an interview as I want to be judged based on my performance at interview and not on an interviewrs bias or stereotypes.

They'll probably do better in a larger organisation witaninterviwers who've had more EDI training who have an EDI quota to fill!

"Non-binary" indicates a lack of gender. An absence of. So how can it be a protected characteristic under 'Gender Reassignment' which it actually means lack of gender?

See this is how fucked up this all is. Even those few defending this must know on some level how fucked up and demented it all sounds. They must do! Only pride stops them admitting it.

This makes zero sense though. (Not your explanation, specifically, but the whole idea.)

Firstly, humans can't change sex. A male person who identifies as female is still in fact male and vice versa. It makes no more sense than saying you identify as a unicorn. Like, yeah, OK, but you're not one.

Secondly, as nonsensical as I find it (because humans can't change sex), a male person who identifies as female is still identifying as something understood and defined. They might not actually be female but at least we understand what female means and what it is they think they are identifying as, even if we don't agree that they can actually be female in any meaningful way.

Non binary is just...nothing. They're identifying as not being something (that they in fact are). But the identity itself doesn't exist. It's the absence something. It's like saying you identify as nothing, or an existential void.

The only way to actually explain it is that non binary identifying people don't identify with the regressive stereotypes that society chooses to attach to men and women.

OK, fine.

But loads of other people don't identify with those stereotypes, without pretending they're neither male nor female. Most people don't conform to them in fact. In truth, the people who uphold and entrench those stereotypes the most are the very same people who think they're challenging traditional received wisdom about gender by identifying as trans or non binary.

By saying that your gender is non binary, you're saying that there is a binary that you identify out of. You're labelling everyone else as people who conform to binary gender stereotypes (whether they in fact do or not) purely so that you can label yourself as someone who doesn't conform to them.

It's actually quite insulting when you think about it. "I'm non binary" essentially means, "I think everyone else is a boring conformist and I am different and special."

And people who think they are different and special are frequently an absolute pain in the arse in situations where they have to rub along with other people, such as school or the workplace.

The concept of non binary is also nonsensical from both a literacy and numeracy point of view. Binary means there are two options. If you create a third option and call it non binary I'm going to go right ahead and assume that you don't know what binary means.

Yes, it's a very useful way of summing it up. And what's more, the thing being shared is about the person's personal belief system. There are some job interviews where the beliefs of the applicant are relevant, but you'll almost always know that going in. The default should be that it's not relevant or desirable to share, unless the job clearly means that's not the case.

I am not sure I agree with choosing not to hire a candidate whose opening sentence references their gender identity is discriminatory.

Your daughter chooses to present as NB. And your choices do say something about you as a person. And as a recruiter, I will draw inferences from that.

Compare with the protected characterisation of religion. I don't give a monkeys what belief candidates follow. I would never ask them at interview. However, if they opened with my name is Margaret, God Bless you, I would not hire them. i would be too worried that they do not understand how to reference their religion appropriately in the work place and that it would play too prominent a role in their lives and potentially cause conflict amongst the staff.

Same goes for gender identity I am afraid.

NB people are protected under gender reassignment, and being non-binary is not a choice. Your scorn shows what you really think of minorities.

From the judgment:

“We thought it was very clear that Parliament intended gender reassignment to be a spectrum moving away from birth sex, and that a person could be at any point on that spectrum. That would be so, whether they described themselves as “non-binary” i.e. not at point A or point Z, “gender fluid” i.e. at different places between point A and point Z at different times, or “transitioning” i.e. moving from point A, but not necessarily ending at point Z, where A and Z are biological sex.”

Any employer who ignores this is a fool.

It's an odd fact that in running a few races with prize money have added a non-binary category and the prizes all seem to be going to runners who are biologically male. What a coincidence!

Like you know how some one is vegan....

I also agree with this.

If we think about all the protected characteristics, no one is listing them on a CV because it has no relevance to how good an accountant (whatever) you are.

Labelling is out of control. It's deeply regressive and IMO sets people up for a career in professional victimhood.

I'm female and work in STEM which, according to some, is a sign of autism. Female scientists like Marie Curie, Émilie du Châtelet, Barbara McClintock, Ada Lovelace and even Hypatia are being posthumously labelled as autistic. Emily Dickinson was apparently autistic because of her interest in botany.

Sexism is flourishing under the guise of inclusivity.

Yeah it is. You're just wrong. The case didn't extent the protection of the Equality Act to non-binary identities.

This is why wishful thinking and activist takes are so unhelpful in these situations. People like DD need to know what the law actually is, not what you wish it was.

Except they aren’t.

@DadJoke

You keep missing the point.

The person is not not being hired BECAUSE they're non-binary.

The person is not being hired because ANNOUNCING this as an opening statement, does not reflect any trait that would be a positive in the work place.

Just screams of attention seeking.

I'd avoid.