Need help to stop my organisation compelling us to use preferred pronouns!

[Appalonia]

I'm a facilitator for an international self development organisation and we have recently been given a code of conduct instructing us to use participants preferred pronouns. I'm absolutely fuming about it! I'm sure this has been done to be ' inclusive' but I really don't think it's been thought through. It's particularly galling as the whole ethos of the work of this organisation is about truth telling. They run trainings to help pp to uncover unconscious beliefs and help pp verify whether they are really true or not. So if a man stood up in a training and said ' I feel like I'm a woman', using this methodology, this belief would be verified as false.

I want to have a conversation with the head of DEI, to discuss why compelling the facilitator s to take on this belief system is potentially so damaging. There's so much great info out there, but I'm looking for an article that is clear and succinct that I can send to them to explain the issues. I think a lot of this has come from America, but I need to at least try and say why I object to this, but I need some compelling facts to do it. Can anyone please help?

I view using someone's pronouns as being like using someone's "married" surname. I don't believe in the ideas behind it but understand that others differ so I extend them the courtesy of referring to them as they wish as it makes working life easier for them and me. I pick my battles.

“I'd adopt strategies such as not using pronouns for those concerned: 'Nancy's report, Nancy's strategies — just use the name or some other reference ('the client from XYZ') — and avoid the use of she/ he and his /her. I might just refer to them by the wrong pronouns and if picked up apologise and say 'Sorry, I'm juggling a lot at the moment and I sometimes forget.'”

This. I’d cheerfully subvert and take this to the enth degree before I’d submit to being forced to call a man she or her.

I'm just reading the judgement on the Forstater case. My understanding of it is that it's not legal to compel someone to use wrong sex pronouns, is that correct?

My (inexpert) interpretation is that you're still not permitted to be deliberately unpleasant to people, and using pronouns they have asked you not to, to their face, could be considered that. Maya has said she will use preferred pronouns in work settings.

What I think it permits you to do is use correctly sexed pronouns where there is a legitimate need to do so, e.g. referring to someone's sex in relation to single sex services, sports etc. where not doing so makes language difficult and obscures something important.

But I am happy for someone to offer a better interpretation!

And to add, a workplace code of conduct can make it obligatory to do all sorts of things not actually covered by a law, e.g turn up at a certain time, wear a certain uniform, use certain titles etc.

But can a code of conduct compel a facilitator to use wrong sex pronouns when they don't believe pp can change sex ( which is a protected belief)?

OK, let's say it actually happens, next time you run a course, Nancy is there. You've never met Nancy before and unlikely to meet them again. Nancy asks you to use she/her and you insist on he/him throughout the day.

Nancy complains, you're called up on code of conduct. Nancy has insisted they're a woman and has a passport etc to prove it but you're going to argue they're a man. How's that going to work? How are you going to prove you're right and Nancy is wrong?

My understanding (IANAL) is that you can't be compelled to participate in a belief system you don't subscribe to.

You can't harass or discriminate against others for their belief in Gender Ideology or for being trans, just as you can't harass or discriminate against them for any other protected characteristic. On the other hand, they can't harass or discriminate against you for your lack of belief and refusal to participate in using wrong sex pronouns.

Perhaps this would be a good place to start asking questions of your organisation? In your shoes I might start by stating my position as a sex realist and then say that I note from the Forstater judgment that it's illegal to compel an employee to participate in a belief system such as Gender Ideology. Any compulsion to use wrong sex pronouns could be argued to be illegal as well as ableist and homophobic. I might ask whether they need to take advice on whether what they propose is legally viable. I'd try to word it rather better then here, but it's late and I should be in bed...

This would not be my reading. Forstater was clear that she would normally use courtesy pronouns. The court was also clear that a failure to do so without good cause could amount to unlawful harassment in some circumstances - see paragraphs 103 and 104, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf

It would be worth reading Mackereth - summarised at https://www.lewissilkin.com/en/insights/gender-critical-religious-beliefs-are-protected-but-do-not-justify-discriminatory-behaviour . His beliefs were found to be protected, but none the less the decision to fire him for a refusal to use prefered pronouns was found to be justified.

By taking the stance you propose you would be going beyond the protections in Forstater and would be putting your job on the line. That is, of course, your choice, but it is worth asking yourself if this is the hill you wish to die on.

Ha so the 2 previous posts seem to contradict each other? I'm not an employee, I'm a freelance facilitator for this org, so I don't have a job at risk. I just want to know whether we are compelled to use wrong sex pronouns and where the law stands on this?

And also, why pronouns are the thin end of the wedge?

Thin end of the wedge, perhaps, because compelled speech has a symbolic function. I think it was Hannah Arendt who noted that forcing people to say things they don't believe is the way that tyrants and conquerors enforce power. Once you've said it, against your will, you've capitulated and given the 'other' power over you. You start by saying the words, and at some point down the line perhaps you start believing what you're saying.

So your organization is anti-trans? Or just you are? Make this make sense.

Not anti-trans. Just not willing to lie and call a man 'she' or a woman 'he'.

It's my understanding that despite not believing in gender ideology, and not being able to compel people, if you don't use the preferred pronoun, it's possible it could be seen as malicious, or harassment, based on a protected characteristic. But I don't think it's ever been proved in court. Hence the difference in interpretations of the law.

So you can't go up to a tw, and keep saying you're a man, you're a man, because that would be seen as harassment. And deliberately going out of your way to correctly sex someone, might be viewed the same.

Maybe saying, I don't believe in gender ideology, but for the sake of courtesy, I will use your preferred pronouns might possibly work. It would probably get you in trouble with your company, but, I can't see how you would fall foul of the law.

I feel for you tho. It's infuriating.

https://fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/

I've been looking into this same thing for an issue at my work. Forstater judgment does not give us the right to use bio sex pronouns in all circumstances. It's about balancing competing rights. Sadly it's not clear cut. Lots of info on the Sex Matters website.

I found this article by Akua Reindorf KC very helpful
https://sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Sex-and-Gender-Reindorf-ELA.pdf

i’d use their name or “they”.

Morning!
Was just coming on to suggest the Pronouns are Rohypnol article, but Datun was on the case.

I’ve found this discussion really interesting having recently had trans inclusivity training at work. I think I start from a different point to you though as I can’t get worked up about pronouns. For me, it’s a matter of courtesy to call/refer to people as they wish. So using she/her does not mean ‘I think you are a woman’ ; it means ‘I respect your right to be called as you wish’.

So following on from this I also think that use of pronouns does not convey any follow on rights, for example the use of women’s toilets or changing rooms. I can draw a clear distinction between gender (which you can choose) and sex (which is a biological fact). So for me, names and pronouns fall into the gender camp so are a matter of personal preference.

Further, I can think of two distinct situations where this arises - firstly where a genuinely trans person wants it acknowledged - and not to do so would be unkind, and secondly where a troublemaker is looking to pick a fight - so why give them the chance?

How do you make the decision about whether someone is a "genuinely trans person" @MrsWobble3? In your opinion, what makes a person "genuinely trans"?

This is almost always the case. And it seems understandable that a parent of a "trans child" might become an advocate for trans people, just as a parent of a disabled child might start to notice the difficulties that disabled people are faced with and advocate for them. But the real parallel is with religion.

What is happening here is like a Christian forcing everyone else to say grace before a meal, or a Muslim insisting that everyone fasts during Ramadan. Transgender ideology could be recognised as a belief system which would give its adherents the same protection as those with religious beliefs, but just as with religion, there is no compulsion amongst non-believers to comply with the rituals and requirements of that religion.

What this organisation has done here is equivalent to saying that because someone high up has become devoutly religious, everyone working for it also has to convert to this religion. This is totally unreasonable and unacceptable.

I can't call my son "she". There are two intertwined reasons.

One is that I would be lying, every time I referred to "her". I have known since the moment of his birth that he is male. He is still male, and he cannot change that however much he would like to, however much he tries to behave "as a woman", however he dresses, and whatever drugs he takes or surgery he has to make him appear on the surface a bit woman-like. I will not turn my relationship with my son into a lie because other people (specifically his girlfriend) tell me that I must not be "unkind" and that it is bigoted to think differently.

The second relates to my own mental health. Constantly trying to pretend that he is in some mysterious sense "a woman" means ditching my own integrity and sets up such cognitive dissonance that I have had to pull off the road while driving. I have never experienced such dark thoughts even at the worst times of my life. I want to be around to support my son when he needs me.

I do use other people's preferred pronouns sometimes, but even that causes cognitive dissonance. I wish we could get back to sex-based pronouns.

For me, it’s a matter of courtesy to call/refer to people as they wish. So using she/her does not mean ‘I think you are a woman’ ; it means ‘I respect your right to be called as you wish’

Me too. I also feel like if I insist on referring to trans people as I see fit rather than as I wish then surely the upshot is they can refer to me as they see fit (eg cis, cervix haver). I think insisting on using sex pronouns for people who would prefer that we didn't gives license to those who want to refer to us in ways we don't like.