Page 2 | Chartered Institute for Personnel - new guidance on Transgender & Belief Manifestation

MishyJDI · 2023-09-08T12:12:47+00:00

I found this interesting. Covers the Maya Forstater case on beliefs at work and their manifestation as well as latest guidance from the Chartered Institute of Personnel on trans/non binary accommodations. Helpful for work considerations on the debate to not fall foul when expressing ones beliefs and concerns. [[https://www.cipd.org/uk/about/news/cipd-new-guide-transgender-non-binary-inclusion/ https://www.cipd.org/uk/about/news/cipd-new-guide-transgender-non-binary-inclusion/]]

AutumnCrow · 09/09/2023 16:45

SecretShambles · 09/09/2023 16:36

It's not criminally unlawful but it sounds like if your employer asked you not to do this at work and you refused, they would have cause to legally dismissed you.

Show quote history

Well no, they'd have to go through a legal employment policy process, which includes the employee at every stage and provides the employee with transparency about what they're supposed to be doing wrong and why. ETs are pretty hot on this. What was the policy? Was it legal? Was it followed?

You can't just sack people and expect to win at an ET because you read it was OK in a brochure.

Froodwithatowel · 09/09/2023 16:51

It's not criminally unlawful but it sounds like if your employer asked you not to do this at work and you refused, they would have cause to legally dismissed you.

And if they did, you would then be able to go and test in court whether you could be compelled, under threat of the punishment of dismissal, to collude in a political lie for the benefit of one colleague against your own interests - interesting to hear a barrister unpack this highly preferential treatment- and forced under threat of punishment of dismissal to enact a belief you not only did not hold, but ran contrary to your own beliefs. The mental health experts should be interesting in that part of that evidence, particularly as in the negative impacts of being forced to lie, and to submit to this subordination to a more important and special kind of person. And then they could unpack the burden upon you to collude and enable this colleague with the total lack of any expectations at all that this colleague might extend some reciprocal tolerance and labour.

And I strongly suspect you could then take your unfair dismissal damages and laugh all the way to the bank. And I'll wish you luck as you do it, because this has to stop.

SecretShambles · 09/09/2023 17:32

Froodwithatowel · 09/09/2023 16:51

It's not criminally unlawful but it sounds like if your employer asked you not to do this at work and you refused, they would have cause to legally dismissed you.

And if they did, you would then be able to go and test in court whether you could be compelled, under threat of the punishment of dismissal, to collude in a political lie for the benefit of one colleague against your own interests - interesting to hear a barrister unpack this highly preferential treatment- and forced under threat of punishment of dismissal to enact a belief you not only did not hold, but ran contrary to your own beliefs. The mental health experts should be interesting in that part of that evidence, particularly as in the negative impacts of being forced to lie, and to submit to this subordination to a more important and special kind of person. And then they could unpack the burden upon you to collude and enable this colleague with the total lack of any expectations at all that this colleague might extend some reciprocal tolerance and labour.

And I strongly suspect you could then take your unfair dismissal damages and laugh all the way to the bank. And I'll wish you luck as you do it, because this has to stop.

Edited

This is a completely untested area of the law. I'm not aware of anyone who has been dismissed for failing to use a colleagues preferred pronouns and brought a claim, are you?

You seem certain that they'd win, I think it's not possible to determine so surely in the absence of much case law in this area ( although admittedly there is more and more coming through the tribunals now)

Sisterpita · 09/09/2023 18:05

One area they have completely forgotten to cover is de-transitioners. I would argue they are even more discriminated against than those identifying as trans or non-binary.

Froodwithatowel · 09/09/2023 18:06

I don't think a case has yet been brought to compel pronouns although several have touched on it, Forstater for example. The transcripts of discussion during are quite interesting as well as the judgement.

I do not see how, considering the points raised above, that a dismissal could stand. Compelled language and compelled enactment of belief is not legal.