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!".

Aside from the Jaguar tribunal the only other tenuously relevant case, which has gone to the high court and court of appeal is Christie Elan Kane and she (not using prefer pronouns because I don't know what they are) considers herself not non-binary but non-gendered.

I understand that Christie awaits the outcome of the latest attempt to have something other than M or F on U.K. passports

www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2020-0081.html

I'm just sharing this as a tangent, it's not remotely connected to the OP. Non binary still isn't defined in law.

There’s no way I’d share a hotel room with a colleague! Currently unable to focus on anything else here due to that batshit position.

No, this is completely incorrect, the individual was explicitly recognised as being non-binary/genderfluid by the court and it was concluded that the protected characteristic extended to them nonetheless. You're also completely wrong to state employment tribunals don't set legal precedents.

They weren't "non binary/genderfluid" as people understand it though, they were a bog standard MTF trans person. Employment tribunals at this level aren't binding as a precedent, as many people pointed out after Forstater 1. Read the Legal Feminist blog I quoted which makes both these points.

Shedbuilder, the relevant cases have already been mentioned in this thread.

And this has been addressed. RTFT.

You appear to know a lot about this issue. Can you point us to the other cases apart from the Jaguar one? I'd be interested to know which cases you refer to. Thanks.

Yes please.

Honestly, I would be looking for new employment ASAP.

Reading about the dynamic involved leads me to believe this situation won’t end well for you.

Dammed if you do, dammed if you don’t.

I just can’t grasp what it is that you want from HR. What guidance? What are your specific questions? If your question is about ‘conservative’ clients, what has been your approach when they’ve been sexist/racist/homophobic? Will that approach serve in this instance?

Kimye should be given their own hotel room and you can play it as "We want Kimye to feel comfortable no matter how they're presenting that day"

@MissTrip82. Why do you assume conservative clients would be sexist/racist/homophobic? These days its more likely to be left wing clients.

@OhHolyJesus

Aside from the Jaguar tribunal the only other tenuously relevant case, which has gone to the high court and court of appeal is Christie Elan Kane and she (not using prefer pronouns because I don't know what they are) considers herself not non-binary but non-gendered.

I understand that Christie awaits the outcome of the latest attempt to have something other than M or F on U.K. passports

www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2020-0081.html

I'm just sharing this as a tangent, it's not remotely connected to the OP. Non binary still isn't defined in law.

So let's get this clear: not a single case of a non-binary person being protected in law despite all the assertions to the contrary by the trans-advocates on this thread.

Are the people on here who keep telling us that non-binary is a protected category stupid, or lying, or do they think we're stupid?

Does it really matter if it's protected now or not?

Solve problems but don't be nasty to people over trivialities

If people are forced to do something ( eg not wear eyeliner if they are male) that's sex discrimination anyway

Does it really matter if it's protected now or not?

Yes I think it does on a theoretical level, if it creates an impression that employers need to let employees use whichever single sex facilities they feel like at the time, despite being obviously a member of their sex. It weakens the position for female only spaces further, which is why TRAs were so desperate to spin Jaguar Landrover as a test case.

If people are forced to do something ( eg not wear eyeliner if they are male) that's sex discrimination anyway

But yes I agree with this.

No it doesn't

It's gender not sex

Single sex facilities not affected

The impact may be if an employer wants to add sex neutral facilities for none binary employees with sex issues

Yes I know it's gender, not sex. Many people already believe it's illegal discrimination or harassment not to let MTF trans people use female facilities. This is not the actual law, but a series of guidances commissioned or funded whole or in part by the government have given this impression. "Non binary" gender identity being protected in law would create many more problems, because it would suggest that males who cross dress a couple of times a week (for whatever motivation) have the same legal protection as full time transsexuals. Which people (wrongly) interpret as needing to allow them access to the facilities of their choice, have their pronouns used by everyone etc etc.

At what point do you draw the line? What about neopronouns?

What about people who use alternating pronouns, whose pronouns change every day, that you have to interpret via a series of coloured bracelets? All these fall under "non binary gender identity".

Which, let us not forget, no one has offered a definition of.

Indeed. There is no definition because it is what the person wants it to be. Anything that isn't boring old "cis" man or woman.

It's a fashion statement. Is anyone doing a long-term study on a chart of people who are currently self IDing as trans? It would be really interesting to see what happens in 3 years, 5 years, 10 years.

It would, but I doubt such a study would be easy to do, or have the backing of any research institution!

@MissTrip82

I just can’t grasp what it is that you want from HR. What guidance? What are your specific questions? If your question is about ‘conservative’ clients, what has been your approach when they’ve been sexist/racist/homophobic? Will that approach serve in this instance?

This. I'm wondering if OP hasn't gotten specific guidance from HR because she's not actually had any specific questions. If you go to HR and just say "Help help I have a non-binary employee and I don't know what to do about it" what exactly do you expect back from them? There's no specific issue or problem there they can advise on. No wonder OP is basically being told to just get on with it. She seems desperate to find problems where there aren't any.

@BlueberryCheezecake

*And anyway the individual concerned was deemed to have started transitioning from MtF, so wasn't non-binary but undergoing gender reassignment, which was why they were covered by the Equality Act*

No, this is completely incorrect, the individual was explicitly recognised as being non-binary/genderfluid by the court and it was concluded that the protected characteristic extended to them nonetheless. You're also completely wrong to state employment tribunals don't set legal precedents.

First Tier Tribunals set no precedents whatsoever. That's so basic it's at the first term of first year of undergrad degree type level understanding.

I would imagine that the reason why the OP is worried is because the entire issue of gender identity is fraught. With, among other things, misunderstanding, opaqueness in law, and threats, veiled or overt.

This very thread is a prime example. People claiming that an employment tribunal has set a legal precedent for a gender identity that has no legal, official, or even universally agreed definition. Along with warnings of potential discrimination.

Personally, OP, I imagine the only thing required at the moment would be to refer to the person as they.

But I don't blame you at all for trying to get ahead of the situation to be prepared, eg should the person change from non-binary to transgender. Or to claim, like some have on this thread, that there is a legal definition to be addressed.

I would just refer to them as they, and if it goes any further and enters the realm of uncertainty, feed it back up the food chain as per that excellent comment above.

The Law Society Gazette on Taylor vs Jaguar - makes it clear the claimant's identity was recognised as non-binary not mtf, that their non-binary identity was judged to fall under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, and that the case sets a precedent for employers www.lawgazette.co.uk/legal-updates/non-binary/gender-fluid-claimants/5105968.article

Blueberry, your own link says "As a result, whilst Tribunal decisions of first instance (such as this case) are not binding on other tribunals we can expect to see a rise in claims from those claimants who identify outside of traditional binary genders."

And people wonder why the OP is asking for advice!