Help! Employee is Transitioning!

[SoManyQuestionsHere]

Reasonably new user name here, so: no NC - but please be understanding about me still having to keep this sort of vague. Also, full transparency, I'm asking around elsewhere, too, to hopefully get an opposite view point.

My employee is, apparently, non-binary and is looking to make some bold, public moves!

Hired in as "male, with a clearly male name and a physical appearance that, while clearly leaning towards androgyny, reads 'definitely male'".

Currently changing name (previously: "George" - obviously NOT the actual name) to something rather more neutral and unusual, along the lines of "Kimye" (equally obviously also not the real name - but: it's not obviously gendered and comes with, sorry - not meaning to sound prejudiced here, I'm genuinely trying to be as pragmatic as humanly possible - connotations that the general public would interpret as "most likely seen on Jeremy Kyle" as well as "they/them" pronouns).

I'm in professional services. A.k.a. "industry that has employees face clients directly". I'm also responsible for a client known for their pretty conservative social values (as a benchmark: earning their respect as a female executive has been an uphill battle for me!). And our employer is, basically, whatever Stonewall's board considers an "ideal case".

Genuinely out of my depth, here!

How would you approach? Given that a) I'm personally a GC but hardly radical (doesn't really matter, I'm a pro and my opinions come last!), that b) I do want to support my employees and don't, personally, see a major problem with "Kimye" doing their thing, internally, c) have a job, which boils down to "make money" and hence necessitates "do not alienate clients" (who WILL feel alienated!), and d) have woman employees whom I cherish, wish to retain and most definitely do not want to ask to share a hotel room with "Kimye" on the grounds that it's one of their more feminine leaning days unless they're 100% cool with it?

Yes, I've asked HR. Apparently, our best official guidance boils down to "play it by ear - we trust our executives!".

EarringsandLipstick, these are some ver fair and very practical question, so, let me try to respond:

On room sharing - answered previously: not applicable to business travel but to "perks". Handling as best I can from a practical POV - I agree it's not ideal but: also just genuinely not bothered enough to make this "the hill I'll die on" opposite a multi-billion corporation. I'll look after the people I'm personally responsible for and will take on anyone necessary for their sake. Otheriwse: will leave the overall situation to people whose job it is to sort it out.

On "whatever else the problem is", in a nutshell: "clients"! Namely the obvious conflict of interest that arises out of "people who pay millions for services - but they have a culture" vs. "but so does this place". And the fact that employer says to "bring your whole self to work" whereas client is stuck at the point of "so, being as tolerant as we are, we're down with the fact that women can wear trousers to work, too, now because we're this modern!"

In a perfect world, client would be okay with "Kimye" contributing the same thoughts with or without a skirt and/or eyeliner. Just so long as they're smart!

In actual reality, the skirt and/or eyeliner results in "senior client executive calling me and expressing concerns". At which point, it turns into my primary problem to try and strike the right balance between "lay off the eyeliner" and "get lost, client, I'll take a hit of a few 100k in exchange for my people being able to express themselves at work!"

THAT is where I genuinely would like guidance but am not getting any!

In actual reality, the skirt and/or eyeliner results in "senior client executive calling me and expressing concerns". At which point, it turns into my primary problem to try and strike the right balance between "lay off the eyeliner" and "get lost, client, I'll take a hit of a few 100k in exchange for my people being able to express themselves at work!"

That's what I was getting at. Realistically you can't prevent this person (or any other employee) possibly alienating clients. You'd have to have pretty rigid (yet legally compliant) policies in place to even challenge them.

@shedbuilder you might be fine with being chased out of toilets but plenty of other mis-sexed women aren't. Especially those who have urgent need because of inflammatory bowel disease or who need to deal with periods. These people should not face harassment.

I don't know how it works, but can your more conservative clients work with someone else, and other clients work with Kimye? Presumably different clients will "click" more with different employees?

@SoManyQuestionsHere

EarringsandLipstick, these are some ver fair and very practical question, so, let me try to respond:

On room sharing - answered previously: not applicable to business travel but to "perks". Handling as best I can from a practical POV - I agree it's not ideal but: also just genuinely not bothered enough to make this "the hill I'll die on" opposite a multi-billion corporation. I'll look after the people I'm personally responsible for and will take on anyone necessary for their sake. Otheriwse: will leave the overall situation to people whose job it is to sort it out.

On "whatever else the problem is", in a nutshell: "clients"! Namely the obvious conflict of interest that arises out of "people who pay millions for services - but they have a culture" vs. "but so does this place". And the fact that employer says to "bring your whole self to work" whereas client is stuck at the point of "so, being as tolerant as we are, we're down with the fact that women can wear trousers to work, too, now because we're this modern!"

In a perfect world, client would be okay with "Kimye" contributing the same thoughts with or without a skirt and/or eyeliner. Just so long as they're smart!

In actual reality, the skirt and/or eyeliner results in "senior client executive calling me and expressing concerns". At which point, it turns into my primary problem to try and strike the right balance between "lay off the eyeliner" and "get lost, client, I'll take a hit of a few 100k in exchange for my people being able to express themselves at work!"

THAT is where I genuinely would like guidance but am not getting any!

Ok, here's a wild idea.

How about you imagine how you would deal with a scenario where your client had a prejudice against an ethnic minority, or a homosexual employee, or a Sikh/Muslim/Jewish/Christian employee.

Now just do what you would do in that scenario, ok?

If that is beyond you perhaps you shouldn't be in your particular role?

@Ionlydomassiveones to be honest at this point I relate gender identities to freckles. Some people have them, some people don’t. though unlike most people I know with freckles, those that do have gender identities like it to be the first thing you notice about them. Not quite sure how that stands up legally though

Not comparable at all.

You should be able to refer yourself to inclusiveness and diversity training, perhaps that would help?

That was to suggestions

What would you do if your clients refuse or object to dealing with people of race, or religion, or anything else? If a male client refuses to see a female employee, would you shun the female employee? You can replace female employee with black employee, Muslim employee, Jewish employee, disabled employee, non binary employee for the same example. Where do you draw the line, do you side with the client or your employee?

FlyingOink, yes, pretty much this.

Evidently, all taking place within the general context of "this is a for-profit operation around here, and: on an individual level: we WILL give you the sack if you make yourself unhireable (unless our legal exposure is worth even more in cold, hard cash, in which case: we won't, though!)

This is, literally, why I find it so exasperating that the best advice I can obtain is "we trust our executives".

A.k.a.: "this sounds like a YOU SORT THIS OUT problem."

@GreyhoundG1rl

Not comparable at all.

Why not?

@anaily

It is binding, if OP decides to discriminate against their employee, the employee would be covered under the equality act. I would highly recommend the employee keeps a record of anything just in case.

There is nothing here to suggest the OP intends to discriminate against the NB employee. She is making every effort to treat them and other employees fairly.

@SoManyQuestionsHere

EarringsandLipstick, these are some ver fair and very practical question, so, let me try to respond:

On room sharing - answered previously: not applicable to business travel but to "perks". Handling as best I can from a practical POV - I agree it's not ideal but: also just genuinely not bothered enough to make this "the hill I'll die on" opposite a multi-billion corporation. I'll look after the people I'm personally responsible for and will take on anyone necessary for their sake. Otheriwse: will leave the overall situation to people whose job it is to sort it out.

On "whatever else the problem is", in a nutshell: "clients"! Namely the obvious conflict of interest that arises out of "people who pay millions for services - but they have a culture" vs. "but so does this place". And the fact that employer says to "bring your whole self to work" whereas client is stuck at the point of "so, being as tolerant as we are, we're down with the fact that women can wear trousers to work, too, now because we're this modern!"

In a perfect world, client would be okay with "Kimye" contributing the same thoughts with or without a skirt and/or eyeliner. Just so long as they're smart!

In actual reality, the skirt and/or eyeliner results in "senior client executive calling me and expressing concerns". At which point, it turns into my primary problem to try and strike the right balance between "lay off the eyeliner" and "get lost, client, I'll take a hit of a few 100k in exchange for my people being able to express themselves at work!"

THAT is where I genuinely would like guidance but am not getting any!

You see a problem in the pipeline and you want to get ahead of it, it’s in your nature, that’s why you’re in a senior position. But my (crappy but lived) advice is that where controversial issues are at stake, generally companies don’t want to make a decision until they are forced too because it better to sit on the fence than annoy either clients or employees. So you need to act reasonably, hope (as HR are) that totally unbidden your employee will make decisions which take into account the attitudes of different clients. However, if and when this doesn’t happen you then need to hand hold the clients in a neutral “hand holding” position, take no actual action, raise immediately with HR a along the lines of “Due to the sensitive nature of this issue and our commitments both to respecting our clients’ priorities and the company’s responsibilities as an employer, I will need you as HR to take the lead in resolving this”. Then CC in the couple of more senior people who will be pissed off if you lose the client and let HR and bosses battle out the best approach.. If you get asked or pressed to take charge, say “I’m afraid this is outside the scope of my expertise”

In actual reality, the skirt and/or eyeliner results in "senior client executive calling me and expressing concerns". At which point, it turns into my primary problem to try and strike the right balance between "lay off the eyeliner" and "get lost, client, I'll take a hit of a few 100k in exchange for my people being able to express themselves at work!"

Has this happened?

I of course don't know your line of work. But I can't imagine any work environment where a client would - as a typical situation & not an odd individual - have such concerns. Why would they?

I'm not being snarky, honest, I don't get the issues, even with your explanations.

However I'm happy to take your word for it that it is something you face in your work environment.

SoManyQuestionsHere
Yes, I agree you have been left without support. The legal exposure you mention is probably disproportionately tipped towards you on purpose.
But essentially what you've said is that so far this chap hasn't expressed political views or indulged in an inappropriate behaviour. He's just very gender non-conforming. So my advice to do absolutely nothing is genuine.
When you get bullied for failing to bully him out of his role, then you need to defend yourself. And the reply you received could end up being useful.

“Due to the sensitive nature of this issue and our commitments both to respecting our clients’ priorities and the company’s responsibilities as an employer, I will need you as HR to take the lead in resolving this”. Then CC in the couple of more senior people who will be pissed off if you lose the client and let HR and bosses battle out the best approach.. If you get asked or pressed to take charge, say “I’m afraid this is outside the scope of my expertise”
This is good advice.

You can’t do anything until senior executive actually ‘calls and expresses concerns’. How did YOU manage to gain their respect?
I’m GC but in this situation they could dislike an employee for any number of reasons and to not have a stance is a step backward.

@FlyingOink

“Due to the sensitive nature of this issue and our commitments both to respecting our clients’ priorities and the company’s responsibilities as an employer, I will need you as HR to take the lead in resolving this”. Then CC in the couple of more senior people who will be pissed off if you lose the client and let HR and bosses battle out the best approach.. If you get asked or pressed to take charge, say “I’m afraid this is outside the scope of my expertise” This is good advice.

This is great!

How about you imagine how you would deal with a scenario where your client had a prejudice against an ethnic minority, or a homosexual employee, or a Sikh/Muslim/Jewish/Christian employee.

I understand why Greyhound says not comparable as I imagine they mean protected characteristics.

However I agree with this POV. Imagine any person being treated unfairly because of how they present physically, religious beliefs they hold or any other differences, and behave accordingly. It's just common sense, and fairness. The choices this employee is making are not impacting on their ability to do the job, and therefore there is no basis for any objection whatsoever from a client.

And so far, it's a non-issue anyway.

The quote was from Cuddlemonsters I wish I had come up with it though

@MonsignorMirth

If they're NB they're definitely not female, in either identity or sex.

What specifically does 'transitioning' entail? (As per your thread title).

Have you asked them (the NB person) directly what changes the employer is expected to make, if any? (or are they requesting anything specific?)

‘Female’ isn’t an identity. It IS a sex. Someone who identifies as NB is either of the male or female sex. A sex class isn’t something you can opt out of.

@MonsignorMirth

It's an issue if an employee attains a protected characteristic, to ensure they are not discriminated against.

Hope that helps TheMilkisoff.

Gender identity is not a protected characteristic.

Is there a policy for clients expected behaviour and treatment towards employees, for what is and isn't tolerated behaviour?

@anaily

All non binary employees are fully protected under the equality act 2010, as well as all gender fluid identities, you can Google Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover for full details. They all fall under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment in the equality act 2010.

No they don’t.