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?

Poor OP. She had a simple worry and her thread has been completely derailed by the usual vile, phobic, Mumsnet mob. Obsessed with their own voices, their own righteousness and their own pitiful anger.

OP, if you’re still reading, I work in a professional industry that has hired a few non-binary people. My friend’s non-binary child has also just landed their first job after graduating this summer. Competition among young people is simply very high. Feel free to shoot me a DM and I can suggest some tolerant industries. Don’t worry, the real world does not reflect MN.

Good point.

How can Beira’s Place be ‘trans exclusionary’ @DadJoke when transmen are welcome?

Hmmmm.

My DC is also non-binary but has a job when at home from uni. I’m not sure if they mentioned their status to their employer, as they go by their female birth name etc so there’s no reason for employers to suspect.
They are trying to get work in their uni city atm and that’s harder. For me I think they need to look smarter at interview and not so ‘alternative’, does your DC present in an alternative manner?? I’ve mentioned getting plain trousers and a more fitted shirt but they know best…

You've watered this down. What do you think strong case law means? It's not a term with a specific legal meaning, unlike eg persuasive or binding. Nor is it capable of creating a new protected characteristic in the Equality Act.

Dare one hope that you've actually read the links you mention here? The first one literally states that the decision you have claimed shows that being non-binary is protected 'is not binding on other tribunals and future cases could be decided differently.' That's what people have been telling you all the way through. It also dates from before the Forstater case, which is important because we now know that gender critical beliefs are a protected characteristic. And the second one doesn't state that being non-binary is a protected characteristic either.

Incidentally, I worked as a solicitor for a number of years.

The word you’re looking for is WOMEN having their own single sex RCC. And I’m sure they’re externally grateful that a bloke off the internet approves

A good employer will recruit the best person for the job. A good candidate will give themselves every opportunity to show themselves off to the best of their ability and demonstrate why the company wants to employ them. I suspect a lot of the issues around employability are simply there were better candidates on the day and nothing to do with anything discussed on this thread.

I believe so, as it is a single sex service for females, as allowed in the single sex exceptions of the EQA2010. They will also signpost transwomen who get in touch to appropriate services, including ERCC (up until referrals were closed to ERCC by RCS following the review I mentioned upthread). Something that ERCC couldn't being themselves to do in return.

www.sundaypost.com/fp/beiras-place-jk-rowling-rape-centre-edinburgh/

Funny how you don't mention all the derailings from people saying how surprised and shocked they are that other people hold different views to them on an obviously controversial and divisive issue. After all, OP didn't ask for anyone's moral take on the issue. Yet you and a number of others felt you had to offer it anyway. Dare I say it, obsessed with your own voices, your own righteousness and your own pitiful anger.

She's had honest answers and can tell her daughter just not to mention the NB thing, which might tip her over into getting a job. Not people just saying what she wants to hear.

I actually think increasingly people now have a friend with a non gender conforming child, or their own child or grandchild. And they see the vitriol and hate spewed by gender critical people, and don’t recognise these stereotypes in their own child. And then like the OP, they become frightened for the life their child may live being accused of being mentally ill, living a fallacy, being a sex predator etc. that their child will face all of this hate and potentially violence against them.

You clearly don’t understand gender critical ideas. Gender critical people think that gender stereotypes harm everyone and that if it wasn’t for gender stereotypes, the boy who likes princesses or the girl who likes wrestling wouldn’t feel like an outsider. Gender critical people support people who don’t conform to gender stereotypes because they think that gender stereotypes are bullshit. The boy who likes princesses is a boy and the girl who likes wrestling is a girl. The adults who label the children as trans rightly get stick because gender critical people see it as harmful.
When people who are not gender conforming have faced violence, it has been from men. You have confused transphobia and gender critical ideas and should go to actual transphobic areas of the internet mainly populated by men.

Well, first of all, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it makes no sense. Clearly. The attitudes here are shocking and ridiculously patronising to young(er) people.

We have blind recruitment so we see no personal info on the applications (as it should be). I recruit a lot and couldn't care less about anyone's personal characteristics. I fact, in sn interview I steer as far from anything personal as I can. That's just good recruitment practice. Good interview practice for candidates is to focus on the role, the JD and giving the best answers you can. That's it.

Is it really that funny? Doubt it.

I know that but those who have had the surgery and are not cosplaying an exaggerated drag queen type of woman I have no issue with.

Yep. That's basically what it comes down to.

There's clearly a real diversity of views on this issue. Sometimes it will be a no no, other times it might be helpful. So OPs DD now knows she can target the organisations where they'll be delighted at her giving her pronouns, or she can cast the net more widely and not proactively offer the information. Depends on priorities. Nobody on here can say which is likely to suit her better.

The original side discussion was someone saying that the vast majority of people were felt negatively towards trans people. I showed that most recent polling showed the opposite among the actual population. So apologies if you jumped in on that and I mistook you for the original poster.

most trans people have to go through extensive stages to transition before they ever get to consider surgery. Living as a woman it is probably clumsy language for those first few years as a trans person finds their way, as hormones start to take effect to make them look more more feminine, as they find their female identity, let friends and family know, and embrace a public shift in gender. Of the trans women I know, within a few years they are generally happily just living in jeans, t shirts and trainers living pretty straightforward, normal lives.

That level of hypocrisy is snort worthy, yes.

Some of the recruitment I shortlist for is done with no contextual information at all. So no age, names, sex, gender, or ethnicity information is provided.

I gave you the recommendation from the solicitor which backs my assertion that exluding people on the basis of being non-binary is not recommended - in my language - stupid.

It isn't creating a new protected category - I am not sure you understood the legal arguments if you think that. It's saying that non-binary people are covered under the protected category of gender reassignment.

Yes, a future case might be decided differently, but this case makes it risky to assume that - in other words, you'd have to be stupid to ignore it.

I am not sure how much clearer this can be:

"In terms of avoiding legal liability for discrimination, employers should assume that non-binary and gender fluid employees are protected under the Equality Act 2010."

"While an employment tribunal ruling does not have to be followed by other courts, it will be persuasive in future cases and employers are advised to bear this in mind when dealing with non-binary employees."

I wouldn't want to employ anyone who did what your daughter does in an interview. It's not the fact that she is non-binary. It is the fact that she makes a 'thing' of it the first time she speaks to me.
I have interviewed people from many ethic backgrounds, people who are gay/straight/whatever - not once has anyone ever said 'I am Betty and I am mixed-race/from an East Asian background/ consider myself Black' or 'I am Jean and I am a Lesbian' or 'I am Phil and I am married to a man', or 'I am Jenny and I am transexual' or 'My name us John and I am bi-sexual' or 'Hi I'm Claire and I am straight'. Not one, ever. If they did any of those things, I would not appoint them. It makes whatever it is into the most important thing and it should not be. It isn't the issue, it is your daughter's behaviour. She is there as a professional, applying for a job, not as a non-binary person who needs immediately to make an issue out of that.

Isn’t the thread about someone who makes their pronouns known before they’ve even been interviewed though and is this making it harder to get a job? That’s what this thread is actually about although it’s gone off that a bit.

And something not making sense to me because I don’t understand it is quite normal isn’t it?

You are conflating two entirely different issues:

accepting trans people,
wanting males in female spaces.

The vast majority of people are (and were, until the extra demands they made) accepting of trans people living their lives.

HOWEVER - as I have proven with polls, the vast majority of people do not agree with males, even if they identify as 'transwomen', in womens safe single sex spaces.

That's taken as read. You know as well as I do that when asked if a intact male should be in the ladies, what the answer will be. Lets be honest here. You know what the answer will be.

Taking Estrogen does not make them 'more feminine', and most transwomen don't ever have the surgery (for various reasons; cost being a big factor, but incidentally most say they "feel no need" to ever have the surgery.

One can support trans people (transwomen for e.g) living their lives as long as it affects no one else, BUT draw the line at males (of any identity) in female spaces.
Most people support transwomen living a life free of harassment, but don't support them in female spaces. For obvious reasons.

yes but this is someone who walks into an interview and announces their pronouns as their opening gambit!

Exactly. Sadly the thread has been derailed only a few pp like you and @BunnyLake get it.
Of course I don't discriminate against trans/non-binary people. Using the pronouns in an email, correcting errors, fine.

But people who make it a big deal are likely to find issues. I don't want a whole load of complaints around perceived slights.

Someone using the wrong pronouns despite correction is an issue. A single mistake in an email, corrected later, no!

Also there's no need for third person pronouns in a two-way conversation. Which is the most common interview scenario.
If they wants to know about inclusiveness they could ask about employee resource groups perhaps

No, they just through as names as sometimes ots not that obvious. Age I can normally work out through year they left school etc