What is the law regarding "misgendering" in the UK?

[cromeyellow0]

Many people assume that the law compels us to use preferred pronouns.

This is not explicitly stated in the Equality Act 2010. Possibly one could interpret failure to use someone's preferred pronouns as harassment, but that seems like a stretch to me (hopefully someone with legal expertise can give proper insight!).

Mermaids and perhaps some police forces want to treat misgendering a crime--to get ahead of the law, as the Labour Party would say.

To quote Susie Green: “We had to get the police involved because a young student was being regularly misgendered by his tutor. The tutor dismissed it until he was informed that it counted as a hate crime.”
www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/02/24/a-charity-called-the-police-on-a-teacher-who-misgendered-their-student/
(Ms Green's legal qualifications aren't known to me. Nor do we have the police's or the teacher's account of this incident.)

I want to read Posie Parkers account of the CPS dropping Greens complaint.

I thought the issue there was the use of the word 'castration'?

Well I suppose it is the equivalent of using a slur if done on purpose. Hardly a crime.

To add to the point on compelled speech, I think it's helpful to see transgenderism as a religion like scientology. You rightly cannot discriminate against people on the grounds of their religion. But the state must not impose transgenderism as state religion.

This was posted on another thread and I agree. All this seems to me is a state religion being forced on us by the thought police who train up the state.

Misgendering is not a crime and not a hate-crime, no. However, it can be a hate-crime if done in combination with another criminal offence, which suggests that the offender is motivated by a hatred for transgender people. So if I beat up a trans person and misgendered them, then that would not just be ABH or whatever, it could also be seen as a hate-crime (ie an aggravating factor).

Thanks Bumblefuddle.

If I identify as a woman (and therefore have the protected category of gender reassignment) but still have a male birth certificate and so am, legally as well as biologically male, then how would it violate my dignity to call me "he"? That interpretation seems, at the very least, contestable. Especially when offset against the freedom of belief that is guaranteed by article 9 of ECHR.

Certainly I don't believe that any MP who passed the Act thought that it would compel us to refer to Ian Huntley as a woman in order to protect his dignity.

But what if I feel that being compelled to lie or accept that men can redefine 'woman' as fits them violates my dignity as a woman? That's a protected characteristic too.

But what if I feel that being compelled to lie or accept that men can redefine 'woman' as fits them violates my dignity as a woman? That's a protected characteristic too.

you could bring a test case. However, it's similar to the religion argument isn't it? My religion abhors homosexuality and I should be free to express it. But the law says that you cannot do that when it violates another person's dignity. It's likely that they will conclude that the harm to a trans person in being misgendered is greater than the harm to you if you cannot express what you believe to be the truth.

The gay cake is a very relevant example.

I share Peter Tatchell's view:
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/01/gay-cake-row-i-changed-my-mind-ashers-bakery-freedom-of-conscience-religion

The explanatory notes on harassment (section 26 of EA 2010) give three examples, two of which could be pertinent to this topic:

A white worker who sees a black colleague being subjected to racially abusive language could have a case of harassment if the language also causes an offensive environment for her.

An employer who displays any material of a sexual nature, such as a topless calendar, may be harassing her employees where this makes the workplace an offensive place to work for any employee, female or male.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/2/2/14/3

I don't know. I definitely think free speech has boundaries. For example, I don't think it should be legal for anyone running any sort of public business to refuse to serve or deal with people because they are gay, of a particular ethnic minority, or trans. At the moment, there seems to be a lot of horrible views being aired (racist mainly) in society with the excuse that it's free speech. I think all types of discrimination need to be viewed from the point of view of the person affected by it. That obviously also includes the rights of women to have female-only spaces where it is necessary for safety and dignity.

There is such a law in New York and maybe other states. In the UK I don't think there is a specific law but it could conceivably be caught under 'hate crime' laws if proved to be wilful and to cause offence.

The case of a judge requiring this in proceedings is his judgement which can be what the hell he wants. Awkward enough being a witness without thinking about such subtleties no doubt.

I think if you make a genuine mistake that’s one thing and I doubt that would have any consequences. It’s a bit different when your argument is that you refuse to refer to someone how they want you to because it conflicts with your beliefs even if by doing so you upset that person.

It's not just that it conflicts with our beliefs though. It is biological fact. We are being asked to pretend it isn't fact in order to validate someone else's unsubstantiated beliefs.

But that’s been the case since 2004 but nobody even raised it then. I wasn’t very old at the time but I can’t remember any feminists raising it as an issue so why is it only in recent years that things have changed?

Well I've definitely seen legal cases where misgendering has been treated as harassment under the Equality Act 2010. However, it's worth remembering that the Equality Act only prohibits harassment in certain contexts (eg employment, provision of services etc), so it won't apply to every instance of misgendering.

There's also the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 which I'm less familiar with as it's criminal law rather than civil, but it might have some application in some cases of serious harassment.

Incidentally, I was once in a situation where one of my client's employees had been accused of maliciously misgendering a transwoman, which they said was an accident, and then later in the case the judge accidentally misgendered the claimant too, which we said demonstrated how easy it is to make these mistakes.

Is calling someone cisgender (who doesn’t use that label) seen as misgendering?

are people expected to know someone's gender when meeting for the first time? I can imagine it'd be very easy to make a mistake under self-id. (I know there is a movement to declare preferred pronouns when you introduce yourself).

I think it's generally quite rude not to address ppl in the way they've requested (eg Ms instead of Mrs) but it can make conversation difficult if you're specifically discussing male/female issues.

That's fascinating @Speedy85, I had no clue that this was actually being enforced. Where can we find details of these cases?

What's your opinion on this aspect of the law?

@CircleSquareCircleSquare: cis people aren't protected under the Equality Act. Only people who are proposing to undergo or are undergoing gender reassignment. So you can be as rude as you like about your cisters.

"The right to freedom of expression is crucial in a democracy. Article 10 of the Human Rights Act safeguards the right to free expression, which includes the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without State interference.

The right to free expression is, however, not absolute – it can be limited to protect the rights of others. Any limitations on the right must be necessary and proportionate, and criminalising even the most unpalatable, illiberal and offensive speech should be approached with grave caution in a democracy."
www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/human-rights/free-speech-and-protest/speech-offences

Cromeyellow

“Cis” people are protected under the equality act by virtue of their sex.

Many women find it offensive and I think they could make a case to say that it is a discriminatory term. Women are oppressed by gender and most of experience gender norms that you might call cos privilege as oppressive discrimination.