What would you do? Re school staff member and colleague calling himself 'miss'

[Icantpeopleanymore]

So it's a delicate situation...I work with a man who is lovely, very young, known him as both a student and now a colleague, he's not a teacher but has occasional contact with kids, I barely need to refer to him by 'Mr ...' but would have to in front of students, he's 'transitioning', on hormones, up until now on staff nights out etc he would wear dresses etc but I would just ignore it (he has a following of woke girls who are more than ready to compliment him on his outfits and I've just ignored it until now) he did once make reference to HRT when I was having a hot flush and compared it to his hormones, it was in a social gathering and not the right place so I just ignored it and changed the subject. However, he's now changed his email to Miss.. surname and I just cannot bring myself to do it. To me, it's actually teaching our students to lie and it's also plainly obvious he's a man, albeit a slightly built long haired one who wears trousers and jumpers to work so fairly gender neutral clothing too.

It just leaves a horrible taste in my mouth and it goes against everything I believe but I also don't want to hurt his feelings or be rude, he's a decent human being, but it's just not on at the same time. It'll only come up once or twice a term at most but others I know who also think it's a load of bollocks and deal with him daily are just going along with it, because he's a nice person and a friend, we've all known him years. They just don't want to be rude. I appreciate he's being brave to make this change of name but he's just so misguided...

It makes me so angry he's put us in this position but I cannot call him miss, it's just ridiculous! Plus I can imagine our students going...who?! As he's clearly a bloody man! Oh and is a scientist 🤦

How do you deal with it when it's at work, you want to be kind and not appear rude, but can't just use a first name? (It's a gender neutral first name thank god, just a shortening of a man's name that could be a woman's) but I can't do that in front of students...

It will become blindingly obvious if you avoid using her name and prefix, and it would be gender reassignment discrimination, which would need to be balanced against your gender critical beliefs, just as it is with religious beliefs.

It's possible that if they asked employees to use her correct name, title and pronouns and you refused, you could be dismissed.

As the Forstater judgement says:

"[The decision] does not mean… that those with gender-critical beliefs can indiscriminately and gratuitously refer to trans persons in terms other than they would wish. Such conduct could, depending on the circumstances, amount to harassment of, or discrimination against, a trans person.”

and Mackereth:

"Refusing to refer to a transgender person other than by his/her/their birth sex, or relevant pronouns, titles, or styles, would constitute unlawful discrimination or harassment under the [Equality Act],”

"DWP’s policies requiring practitioners to use people’s correct pronouns “were a necessary and proportionate means of achieving their legitimate aims”

How is avoiding his name and prefix discrimination? Discrimination is sacking him because he's transgender.

I would call him first name/surname

@DadJoke The opposing rights would have to be balanced as gender critical views are now a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act.

The judge also stated that while gender-critical views might be "profoundly offensive and even distressing to many others...they are beliefs that are and must be tolerated in a pluralist society".

It's not a simple case and will depend on the context and surrounding circumstances.

Yes, that's pretty much what I said.

However in Mackereth (informed by Forstater), it stated that "Refusing to refer to a transgender person other than by his/her/their birth sex, or relevant pronouns, titles, or styles, would constitute unlawful discrimination or harassment under the [Equality Act],”

So, while the views need to be balanced, the balance in case law so far would appear to lean towards not misgendering.

A general rule that transgender teachers can be freely misgendered by gender critical people seems unlikely.

Also, who wants to be a test case?

RTFT. In particular, the quotation from KCSIE upthread.

Children must not be used as validation tools for adults. Children must not be forced to lie to make an adult happy. Can you really not see where requiring children to deny the evidence of their eyes, and to ignore their own disquiet to please an adult, leads?

The fact that you would prioritise the wants of the adult, is profoundly depressing.

Hi @pronounsbundlebundle

Would you mind sharing the page that this statement is included on please? This is really interesting but am unable to find it in the KCSIE doc. Many thanks!

Sorry to hijack your thread OP but am in a very similar boat!

I’m also not sure about this, DadJoke, and I think you may be selectively quoting from Mackereth. From memory, the employer tried to find a workaround (such as avoiding pronouns) but this wasn’t acceptable to Mackereth, so he quit and claimed constructive dismissal.

In any case, so far we only know that we have a male colleague here who likes to adopt a feminine style but the OP has not had clear instructions, or been presented with a new name, so this is all guesswork - hardly enough to warrant dismissal!

wouldn't it be great if all we had here was a man dressed in appropriate, professional 'feminine' clothing with maybe longer hair and some mascara, and all OP had to deal with was sniggering from rude teenagers

It might be ok, because we had a trans teacher at our school and of course everyone knew he was a man but the kids just said Miss....until one day he decided he would rather be called Mx. Now it's one thing asking kids to be respectful and referring to a trans teacher as Miss, but quite another to introduce a stupid made up word which means nothing to children and is designed to confuse them further. Luckily one of the teachers told a mum, who put it on the wattsap group, who kicked up a fuss. It was reverted back to Miss.

It's true that Mackereth did not explore the option of deliberately avoiding pronouns and titles - the complainant suggested this as an option, then withdrew it, so there was no judgment on that.

It's also the case that the school might attempt an accommodation (or simply avoid the issue.) In which case, a court case would be less likely, though if the transgender teacher complained, and the school did not change their policy, the teacher would have a strong case for direct discrimination.

@nothingcomestonothing I was discussing the law, not my own views, in answer to the OP.

However, transgender people are not a "safeguarding issue" for children, any more than gay people were when the same line of attack was used in the 70s and 80s.

Isn't it direct discrimination against someone's GC beliefs (which precedent has established is protected in law) to compel them to use wrong sex pronouns as part of their conditions of employment? It's like forcing a non-Christian to wear a cross or something similar.

A trans employee is free to use the speech they want about themselves, I fail to see how it doesn't fail the EA 2010 to directly force someone who doesn't believe to comply with the GI beliefs.

I can see a case for requiring them to try to avoid pronouns altogether if the trans person's mental health is so fragile that using normal English might cause a crisis but this is hard, and that should be recognised. I'd be happy to do my best to avoid pronouns altogether as a reasonable adjustment for a very fragile colleague, but I don't have to wear a hijab for my Muslim colleagues and I see this as no different.

Hi @PammieDooveOrangeJoof here's the link to KCSIE

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/keeping-children-safe-in-education--2

The section describing what emotional abuse is starts on p10 and goes on to p 11.

In my opinion preventing children from using normal, natural English pronouns and sanctions if they don't do what the adults in the school are telling them to do (use wrong sex pronouns) meets this definition.

@pronounsbundlebundle You've got that back-to-front. Refusing to use the correct pronouns is like insisting on wearing a dangling cross or proseltyzing to patients if you are a nurse. There might be reasonable accommodation, but direct discrimination against transgender students and teachers is a very high bar against your unwillingness to address them by their chosen title and pronouns because of GC or religious beliefs. That's what Mackereth and Forstater were about.

But the point is that they’re not the correct pronouns.

@CaramelMac the fact that GC people don't want to use them doesn't make them incorrect. It means that you will only use pronouns based on the genitals matching your view of their gender, just as the complainant in Mackereth used biblical quotations to support his views.

Just asking people what their pronouns are is more straightforward and less intrusive, and has no effect on your beliefs.

The question is, is it more discriminatory to insist that GC and highly religious people use the correct pronouns, or allow the misgendering of transgender colleagues based on their best guess of what genitals they have?

If you were working with someone, using their title and pronouns in emails and conversation, and you found out they were transgender, would you start misgendering them?

LOL no one has pronouns based on the genitals matching my view of their gender, because I don't believe anyone has a gender. Does that mean everyone has now become a Barbie/Ken doll?!

If you were working with someone, using their title and pronouns in emails and conversation, and you found out they were transgender don't worry, that never happens. We all know who is transgender, partly because humans are excellent at correctly sexing each other, and partly because they rarely shut up about it.

I didn't say transgender people are safeguarding issue, as I think you know. Asking children to deny what they know to be literally true, asking children to ignore their own discomfort because either makes an adult happy, absolutely is a safeguarding issue.

You're wrong.

Sex-based pronouns are standard English usage and have been for hundreds if not thousands of years, probably thousands. Pronouns are not an individual part of language they are sex class based in English.

Refusing to use wrong sex pronouns is refusing to go along with the belief in an inner gender identity essence that can never even be explained. What does 'feeling like a woman' if you're XY mean? How do you gatekeep against the Katie Dolatowskis and Andrew/ Amy Millers who want to work in schools - and I bet they would.

Especially if it's on safeguarding grounds in a school. At most I can see a requirement to use names and no pronouns or 'they' but using wrong sex pronouns - nopity nope - massive humungous safeguarding red flag.

I can't wait for the court case.

I think Dadjoke will have to accept that reasonable people have different answers to the question of what ‘correct’ pronouns are. This has been discussed as nauseam.

In this case, we would also have to establish conclusively that the assistant teacher has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

I am female but sometimes like to wear masculine clothing and I wear my hair short. Does this mean I have the PC of gender reassignment?

The OP has asked for practical advice. I think it’s OTT to threaten her with a lawsuit.

And the Anita Bryant video is totally off, sorry. Wrong country, wrong time period, wrong religion and off topic.

And profoundly frightening that this is what is forced on children.

@pronounsbundlebundle LGBT people are not a safeguarding risk. Using the correct pronouns is not a safeguarding risk.

@Holeinamole you've confused gender expression with gender. Gender reassignment is defined in the EqA - you don't need me to tell you what it is.

I am not "threatening" OP. I'm suggesting that she needs to be careful. She might get away with avoiding pronouns altogether, but I am not sure if that's sustainable. My advice would be, use the title and pronouns.

Using the correct pronouns is not a safeguarding risk.

No, using the correct pronouns - so in this case, the pronouns he/him/his or the honorific Sir or the name Mr X- is not a safeguarding risk. It's good we all agree on this.

You are correct, using correct pronouns is not a safeguarding risk. However, using pronouns that do not reflect children's reality is very much a safeguarding risk.

Dadjoke, take it from a veteran workplace pronoun avoider: nothing happens if you don’t use pronouns at work. Nobody owes anybody validation, and employers have better things to do than to catalogue who used what pronoun and when. It’s good to avoid insulting colleagues but it’s also important not to become paranoid. The OP will draw her own conclusions.

And surely, by ‘gender’ you mean ‘gender identity’ which is an invisible thing that exists is some people’s minds. Most trans-ID’d people express this inner feeling by wearing clothes etc. of the opposite sex.

But my point is precisely that such expression does not reliably signal gender identity and that usually it takes a speech act for the rest of the world to know. So until I say “I am a man.” I could just be a woman wearing masculine attire. And once I’ve uttered the magic words, at least in my world, I am simply a woman who says “I am a man.” But for the OP’s purposes, that speech act is important.