Is it "unlawful" to deliberately misgender someone?

[Davros]

I have recently asked an organisation its position on Self ID and, as well as many other paragraphs of text I'll have to wade through, they have included this and I am unsure if it is accurate. Can anyone elucidate? Thanks:

The Equality and Human Rights Commission says in its guidance that, in providing goods or services, to deliberately address individuals as being of a gender other than their self-identified one is unlawful.

There is no case law on whether it is lawful to address a man as Mr.

I don't know, OP. But I find it horrifying that refusal to cram someone into a sex-stereotype box could be illegal. It would be illegal to refuse to play the gender game, illegal to refuse to force others into sex role stereotypes. It would make the practice of feminist analysis illegal.

It will depend on the context.
Are you talking about an individual or a business? A business is bound by The Equality Act.
There's nothing in it about misgendering, it is not unreasonable to assume someones sex if you are talking face to face no matter how they are dressed, or many women would have to be addressed as 'Sir' on the grounds we are wearing jeans.
But if you ask customers to tick a box and give their preferred title it would be odd to use a different one in an email.

It can't possibly be unlawful, otherwise every time I get a letter addressed to Mr Datun, I could sue them.

I believe that what does go against the equality act is if it constitutes harassment.

And one day, hopefully not that far away, we will get a very definite description of what that is. Calling men, men, is not it.

I here deliberately say that Mrs Brown is a man.

There.

I've been addressed as mr a few times.

It cant be unlawful surely.

In fact one such time was from the CPS or cjs or something.

Abusing staff however is or at least should he unlawful which means that gaslighting staff members into believing one thing when the opposite is clear should be what is considered the actual offence

Maybe. According to the Communications Act 2003 anything sent "persistently" by means of a public electronic communications network that causes annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another can be an offence.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

Why aren't we drowning in convictions? Because the Police will only act on behalf of certain groups. Even though the Act is not supposed to be limited in such a way.

Many women have been misgendered but we aren't trans, and misogyny is not treated as a hate incident even when it leads to a woman's death.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission says in its guidance that, in providing goods or services
The guidance refers to The Equality Act; which deals with services provided by a business and conditions at work, focusing on discrimination, and does not mention misgendering.

Better guidance might say something like 'it is polite to ask staff and customers how they prefer to be addressed and try to accommodate them where reasonable.'

Many women have been misgendered but we aren't trans

Which is a neat demonstration of the fact that the concept of misgendering only applies if you self-describe as trans.

Which, incidentally, they won't let us do; we are deemed the c-word and not permitted to argue about it.

Only trans people are allowed to misgender anyone. They have to be allowed this right, so that they can do it to themselves, otherwise we're committing genocide, or something. But we have to stay in our box.

And I'm sick of pandering to their obfuscatory language and being expected to say misgendering. Many women have been mis-sexed because in the absence of other markers such as the visible presence of a female body, we're assumed to be male by default - that's what's going on in the case of a letter addressed to Mr Tyro.

"There's nothing in it about misgendering, it is not unreasonable to assume someones sex if you are talking face to face no matter how they are dressed, or many women would have to be addressed as 'Sir' on the grounds we are wearing jeans."

That reminds me of the woman who, when travelling in India on business some years ago, was asked by the hotel porter: 'May I carry your briefcase, sir?'

I'm still very confused. I need to read all of this again very carefully and the full response I was given that this excerpt came from. Thanks everyone for your responses.

I think in Canada it is unlawful hate speech if you don’t use a persons preferred pronouns. So if a MtF trans person requests that you call them “miss”, “she”, “her” and you refuse, you’ve broken the law.

I haven’t heard of anywhere else adopting that law though.

It may come down to ‘intent’. A generic letter is just that, and it’s a different scenario to wilfully refusing to use somebody’s preferred pronouns (not that I’m necessarily saying you should be forced to).

There was a thread recently where a HR Director of a large multinational chipped in and said that in her experience disciplinary action could be commenced against somebody who chooses not to use the pronouns. It didn’t go down well but I’d have guessed she’s probably more likely to know than most on here.

It didn’t go down well but I’d have guessed she’s probably more likely to know than most on here.

Yeah, it's women like 'most on here' who forced the CPS have to withdraw their entire schools toolkit because it's illegal.

There was a thread recently where a HR Director of a large multinational chipped in and said that in her experience disciplinary action could be commenced against somebody who chooses not to use the pronouns

Someone said they were a HR Director of a large multinational?

Did you just invalidate some randomer's careering identity?

I remember that comment, there was also a poster who kept insisting the HR person would know more about it than most on here.

Someone said they were a HR Director of a large multinational?

I think Rabid might mean this thread.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3889328-Can-someone-please-help-me-out-with-pronouns

A poster on there claimed to be an Equality and Diversity Officer for a large NGO, but showed himself to be an ignorant misogynist who was very keen on compelled speech.

I remembered it to be a female poster so maybe was a different thread. Can’t be arsed to go and check though!

I don't think the poster claimed to be either male or female, but appeared to really hate women.

Rabid if they didn't specify their sex you'll have assumed they were female. It's one thing I love about this place, the flipping of the default human from male to female.

I remembered it to be a female poster so maybe was a different thread. Can’t be arsed to go and check though!

You were posting on it quite a bit Rabid
So, it seems likely.

Its quite an interesting one & may be useful to the OP.
It may prove useful that you referenced it.

Dont know if it's illegal but you certainly can be done for contempt of court. Transpeople are entitled to their choice of pronouns in court - even from their victims. Which may be fine in cases of white collar crime but is a bit shit when it comes to assualt and crimes of sexual violence.

You were posting on it quite a bit Rabid. So, it seems likely.

Oh, it does indeed seem likely then. 😂

I hope I wasn’t being too...Rabid. I find some of the trans discussions a bit frustrating at times.