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!)

No, it's not misgendering, it's correctly sexing. You are trying to make it illegal to tell the truth. How awful of you.

A slightly different analogy here, but how do Quakers get on with their conscientious objections to using titles? They fundamentally believe that everyone is equal before god, and the use of titles diminishes everyone's worth. If they, say, work in the charitable sector, I'm sure they work alongside clergy, academics and aristocracy where use of titles is expected, how is that received by outsiders?

It's like the emic/etic thing in anthropology and insider/outsider perspectives respectively. Women are being defined by the "outsider" class (law of misogyny that women are whatever men say they are). Men are driving the narrative that pronouns and gender identity can be self declared (rather than laid down at conception). Women's emic perspectives have become contentious in the clash between sex and gender.

No, it's not misgendering, it's correctly sexing. You are trying to make it illegal to tell the truth. How awful of you.

I am just using the language that the Courts and Tribunals use. I don't even believe in gender.

Ally: I do hope you were happy with the explanation of why sex is a more heavily protected characteristic than being trans.

You are 'just' using the language that you are your ilk told the Courts and Tribubals to use #weseeyou

This is why the GRA needs repealing and replacing with something else.

Pronouns reflect the speaker's perception of the subject, not the subject's perception of themself. Compelling a person to lie about what they correctly perceive is territory the law should never have entered.

We have the situation now where an actual provable lie has been made a protected characteristic.
And where forcing others to collude in the lie has become legally compulsory.
And where refusing to lie has become harassment.

It's like making creationism a protected characteristic and prosecuting those who refer to evolution.

It's pretty much a blasphemy law in all but name.

Would Pratchett have a better case for objecting to “cis” being used of her?

Ally: I do hope you were happy with the explanation of why sex is a more heavily protected characteristic than being trans.

I missed that post but have looked at it now and don't agree. There are specific exceptions carved out for sex (eg all women's shortlist's, which for info would allow men who have a GRC and are therefore legally considered to be women to stand) but those exemptions are very specific and not relevant to this situation. They do not create a general hierarchy which applies outside of those specific exemptions.

You are 'just' using the language that you are your ilk told the Courts and Tribubals to use #weseeyou

I've only done defence and have actually fought against allegations of discrimination from trans people. So I'm definitely not trying to get the Courts to use 'pro trans' language.

I'm just letting you know the legal position. You are free to martyr yourself if you want but you should be aware of the consequences before doing so.

I would say it's matter of following your employer's policy. You follow the policy or you expect to get into disciplinary proceedings. At those disciplinary proceedings you may raise the question of whether the policy discriminates against you as one who does not share the belief that you have, and can change, a separate gender ID.

Specific in the sense they allow positive discrimination as a proportionate remedy? But you didn't realise this? Are you really a lawyer🤔

Ally: transactivists have forced through changes which are discriminatory to women. You applaud this.

Roger: thanks. - my company has a nascent policy of self ID which I consider highly discriminatory against me and other women.

I think Ally is a Lawyer in the field OP.

She isn’t giving a personal opinion I don’t think.

I think Ally is a Lawyer in the field OP.

She isn’t giving a personal opinion I don’t think.

This! Ally is giving you free legal advice with expertise, Pratchet, not arguing against you!

Self ID isn't the law so can't trump the law, even if its written into your contract.
My understanding is that if you had a condition which means you see people as male or female and so cannot remember the ''correct'' pronouns as a result, you'd have to bring a case of discrimination based on a disability.

Facts and ingrained habit aren't a disability so you'd have to fight for them as a belief. I think you'd end up creating a test case and in the current climate you'd probably lose.

That would affect everyone who is in the same position as you in the future, so the rule is you don't create a test case until you have a watertight case.

My advice would be to pick your battles and look elsewhere. It's not uncommon for an employer to want to get rid of a loose cannon and use a different reason to the real problem.
Don't be the loose cannon.

This is a really interesting thread. If we take the legal advice to use correct pronouns then older people and very young children or those who are unaware that the, fully presenting as a man, person in front of them is identifying as a woman that day, are all going to be guilty of harassment by calling him a him. This is bonkers and unfair. We cannot expect older people with dementia, young kids, those with learning difficulties to know whether someone is identifying as a different sex that day. If I accidentally or not misgender someone at work then if they bring a claim I could surely go to court and say that I have decided to identify as a man and they had also done exactly the same to me by referring to me as she thereby harassing me.

😳😳😳😳😳😳😳😳 oh god

Facts and ingrained habit aren't a disability so you'd have to fight for them as a belief. I think you'd end up creating a test case and in the current climate you'd probably lose

Yes. Thanks for articulating my concern. I didn't quite know this was my concern until you have it these words.

Ally, I'm a little confused here but it seems I was unnecessarily arsey.

@Clinicalwaste Exactly, not being able to go along with a social lie because you are a child puts the courts in the position of having to decide a 'date of consent' or something after which pronouns become legally enforceable.

This is going to force court cases to decide degrees of 'impairment' for 'conditions' such as autism, or dementia. Or as yet undiagnosed brain 'conditions.'
Which takes us into National Socialist territory.

UPSTART
So this is basically the biggest and most unenforceable law and waste of time in the history of legal process. If we can all change pronouns at will and it is harassment to misgender someone then how will we all in reality get on with life. I won’t be able to leave the house without getting a claim against me and my daughter will have a criminal record as long as her arm at the age of 11 by accident.
I know I am ranting now but seriously..........🤦🏽‍♀️

Clinicalwaste I know, its insane. It seriously concerns me that people who make the law are so disconnected from everyday life that they cannot see the logical outcome of enforcing it.

I can only assume they've never looked after a child, or someone with a learning difficulty, or dementia.

I agree @AllyMcBeagle was just trying to advise you as to the legal position. That's not necessarily their opinion lol

I think it would be hard for you to prove harassment just by someone asking you to use a different pro noun. Has this actually come up or is it hypothetical?
Someone asking you is fairly reasonable, someone forcing you is different!

Even so I'm not sure you have a case, and I have a law degree although work in a different field. Sex is a protected characteristic but you're not protected just by being a woman iyswim.

Anyone misgendering could get in trouble, man or woman. You're not being discriminated against because of your sex but because of your actions.

I'm not for self Id etc but I'm not sure your approach is right either.

What about 'genuine' trans people who have a grc and are just trying to quietly get on with their lives. Are you going to insist on embarrassing them repeatedly at work

Ally, I'm a little confused here but it seems I was unnecessarily arsey

No worries at all! I think sometimes when I explain the law it can come across as if I endorse it. I have said in other threads that the law would be different if I was in charge. You just deserve to know what you are letting yourself in for if you stick with the pronouns that match the person's sex rather than go along with the one's that match their gender (incidentally, I don't have a big problem with the term 'misgendering' because my position is that gender is a nonsense concept, but I always avoid the term 'cis' because that one does bother me).

Specific in the sense they allow positive discrimination as a proportionate remedy?

There's not a generic provision saying positive discrimination is OK. There are some very specific provisions saying basically 'If you do X, it won't be discriminatory against people with Y characteristic' - eg you can do all women's shortlist's without men being able to complain they are being discriminated against. The language about all women's shortlists in the Act is a bit hard to read if you don't have an in-depth knowledge of the structure of the Act, but here's the provision about single sex services:

28(1) A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to gender reassignment discrimination, only because of anything done in relation to a matter within sub-paragraph (2) if the conduct in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

(2) The matters are—

(a) the provision of separate services for persons of each sex;

(b) the provision of separate services differently for persons of each sex;

(c) the provision of a service only to persons of one sex.

So you can see that it's saying that whilst it would normally be discriminatory to treat transwomen with a GRC differently from women, if you're providing a single sex service and you've got a fair reason for excluding them (or in the fancy language of the Act it's 'a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim') then in that specific instance it doesn't count as discrimination.

In the same way, there are some specific exceptions which give special treatment to religious people, but they were no use to the registrar who didn't want to marry gay couples and ended up losing their job.

Thanks Ally. What I don't understand is why forcing me, a woman, to submit to using incorrect pronouns (self ID) is not harassment.

Ally also: doesn't the single sex provision also apply to school toilets if the schools decide so?