Pronouns

[Pratchet]

How far will I get at work if I refuse use incorrect pronouns because it is discrimination to force me to support an ideology which is harmful to me? Serious question. Anybody who can help, that would be great.

Also, does anyone at all have an opinion on whether my stance would be strengthened by me saying that forcing me to use incorrect pronouns is disrespectful
A. To me as a woman or
B. To my identity as a woman

Looking for all views. (You're probably all gardening or at the beach while I'm at work refreshing my phone!)

Honestly OP no, I don’t think you would get very far.

For a start, harassment requires ‘unwanted conduct’ so a tribunal would have to be prepared to describe being trans and wanting to be referred to by a preferred pronoun as such, and I really can’t see that happening.

Names don't signify sex, Ally. You can be a man and be called Ally, Brenda or Caitlin. There's no reason to have a problem with names.

Why should I practise? Why don't trans people practise not forcing people to use incorrect pronouns?

Tufty: thanks. So it would have to be 'harassment' and not 'humiliating environment'? I would have thought it's easier to see how forcing women to use incorrect pronouns for a man is humiliating.

Women are more protected than trans under the Equality Act. Did you miss that the first time I said it.

I don't mean to be rude but I'm not sure what you mean by this? Sex and gender reassignment are both protected characteristics and there is no hierarchy. The only way in which sex is 'more protected' than gender reassignment is that there are certain exceptions in the Act which mean that eg single service providers can choose to exclude trans women from single sex services in certain limited circumstances. But none of those exceptions are relevant to this situation.

I speak as a lawyer with a lot of experience in Equality Act cases. I am not here to defend the law but I will explain it and I can say that my advice would be not to misgender this person as they could sue and don't think you could successfully defend yourself.

If I were in that situation I think I would just use their name and tbh if I were forced to use pronouns I wasn't comfortable with I would avoid speaking to or about the person in question. You also can't force people to employ people so I think as an employer I just would choose someone who was less likely to cause upset at work. Anyone who made a big fuss about pronouns at an interview would raise a red flag for me.

Sorry, not being clear. The definition of harassment under the Equality Act requires:

1. unwanted conduct, and
2. for this conduct to have the purpose or effect of creating a hostile, humiliating, degrading or offensive environment.

So creating a humiliating environment isn’t enough - it has to be unwanted conduct that creates it if that makes sense.

The Equality and Human Rights commission includes repeated use of non-preferred pronouns as an example of harassment under the Equality Act.

Trans people are protected against negative discrimination (being sacked eg for how you present).

Sex is protected because positive discrimination is permitted as a proportionate remedy (to negative discrimination) : that is, for example, all women shortlists are allowed.

Of course, under the Equality Act, sex-segregated spaces are also allowed, enabling some spaces to exclude even those trans people with a Gender Recognition Certificate.

Disturbing: thanks for your response. The analogy is more like: refusing to call a layman a priest, or refusing to call somebody a professor, even though they aren't one.

Yes, definitely that's the real case.

I suppose I was looking for an equivalent kind of 'conscientious objector' status. I'm not Catholic, so I'll call him Mr. Brown, not Father Brown, I'm not Genderist, so I'll call that male person 'she', I'm a republican, so I won't call her Lady Diana, just Diana etc.

I feel like having a political position on it would make it more reasonable and defensible to those who are prone to kneejerk reactions to be nice/capitulate to demands

Thanks fallen: that's not the law though is it? Or is it.

Thanks disturbing : how extraordinary that framing it as a belief system rather than the actual truth would be better received.

The main definition of harassment is as follows in case you are interested (there are a couple of additional definitions but I've left them out as not relevant):

(1) A person (A) harasses another (B) if—

(a) A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and

(b) the conduct has the purpose or effect of —

(i) violating B's dignity, or

(ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.

[Re EHRC guidance] that's not the law though is it? Or is it.

It's guidance which Courts/Tribunals are legally obliged to consider when deciding cases, and will almost certainly follow.

Thank you Tufty.

So I would have to prove that forcing me to use the wrong pronouns is unwanted conduct, and that it is humiliating.

I should say I'm talking self ID here. I would use 'they' for people with a GRC probably. I use 'he' when talking about Paris Lees, for example, if it comes up in conversation.

I'm pretty sure that in the recent Primark case, the transgender employee kept a diary of all cases of perceived transphobia, and naturally these included all deliberate as well as accidental 'misgenderings', referring to as a man, etc.

I can't be bothered to look it up, but this could for sure be used.

You would be on a hiding to nothing trying to argue that using female pronouns demeans your sex or whatever.

Assigned: ew that's so sad and desperate.

Just use their name.

Terf: hmmm. It's clearly humiliating. It's in plain sight. Argh.

I've taught trans teenagers. One of them was kicked out of their home because of their transition. That's abuse. IMO.

going on cakes and christian business owners, not a fucking chance in hell.

Yes that's abuse. As is blocking the puberty of a healthy child with off label cancer drugs and setting them on a path that is likely to lead to sterility.

here's another thought:

what if, say someone autistic, who sees the person as their birthsex... and struggles to remember the pronouns that the trans person has requested... two protected characteristics...

what if, say someone autistic, who sees the person as their birthsex... and struggles to remember the pronouns that the trans person has requested... two protected characteristics...

That would be interesting, but at the end of the day it would be accidental misgendering so quite different to any conflict between gender critical feminists and trans people.

Given that this would be deliberate misgendering it is more akin to the case of the Christian registrar (protected characteristic: religion) who did not want to marry gay couples (protected characteristic: sexual orientation). The registrar lost that case.