Council worker sacked over pronouns

[mcduffy]

Can't do a share token as telegraph

The worker has lost a tribunal

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/17/gender-critical-council-employee-sacked-over-pronouns

A “gender critical” council worker was sacked after protesting the use of pronouns on his email signaturee_.
James Orwin was left furious when Caroline Lacey, the council’s chief executive, invited employees to “consider adding pronouns to your email signaturee_, should you wish to do so”.
In “protest”, Mr Orwin, an IT project officer, changed his email footer to “XYchromosomeGuy/AdultHumanMale” rather than he/himm_.

I wonder if the fact that he lost in tribunal will get him sympathy - from men.

It's a stupid policy but his way of pointing that out wasn't going to make them change their minds. Yes, his response was provocative but then so is adding pronouns in the first place, particularly those stupid made up ones. You may as well invite people to add their horoscope sign for all its relevance.

Let's not pretend this pronoun adding is anything other than a trendy political signal rather than a sincere attempt to avoid sexual ambiguity. And I suspect it will die out sooner rather than later.

Until then, it's a handy way to separate wheat from chaff. I find people who add their pronouns do so because (a) they are be-kind sheep who haven't thought about the issues and so have illustrated that they will take a stance without thought or (b) they are ideological zealouts who are being deliberately provocative by stating either outright lies or the patently obvious in adherence to their new religion.

Neither are types of people I'm likely to admire or trust with complicated or nuanced problems.

I am invited to state my pronouns in my email from a large US company I work for. I haven't
Its no big deal, it wasn't refusing to state his pronouns that got this idiot into trouble it was his behaviour over it

Say 'Juan cur' out loud

So this man is a troublemaker for stating facts, but a trans woman is absolutely fine to lie and tell people he is a woman? 🙄

I'm glad this man did what he did, the more people that highlight this gender pronoun crap, the better.

Yes, quite

He was silly and facetious but not offensive and he didn't endanger anyone. He probably deserved a warning. But being sacked? Is there more to this?

I wonder how he was "reported"

Nail on head

We are invited to have pronouns in our signatures.

At our last EDI meeting a non-binary person was invited along to talk about their lived experiences and how we can help them feel safe.

Before the meeting we were sent a set of conduct guidelines which included using pronouns in signatures.

At that point I identified a scheduling conflict and opted out of the meeting. A colleague attended and they were all asked to take it in turns to share their pronouns at the beginning. My colleague declined and later accidentally referred to the non-binary person by their bio pronouns. He was later given a talking to.

The judgment is worth a read. The claimant clearly feels very strongly about this on principle, and was deliberately protesting the council's adoption of the ideology per se , rather than the lack of opportunity for employees to express their non-believer status in their email footers (HR seem to have suggested looking for less 'offensive' wording that might have this effect, but he wasn't having it).

He uses the word 'evil'. He also objects to the Equal Treatment Bench Book, which provokes an 🙄 from the Tribunal ('we don't know what he expects us to do about it'). And he refuses to be he/himmed.

He deserved to lose, but I wish he'd involved a clever lawyer much, much earlier, because they might have been able to achieve something.

He was silly and facetious but not offensive and he didn't endanger anyone. He probably deserved a warning. But being sacked? Is there more to this?

Sacking does seem extreme, but I suppose once he refused to comply, having made his initial protest, it put his employer in a difficult position. You can't have staff putting something obviously stupid in their email signatures - well, unless it's the correct, prescribed stupid thing.

True, but even people you don't like have rights.

He probably would have done better to remove the signature when asked and then go through the official complaints process asking why his chosen “identity” was unacceptable.

The idea of choosing your pronouns is massively sexist and regressive and he was right to make a protest. If trans ideology is valid then the council has no right to decide that his pronouns were inauthentic.

I disagree with this. This is particularly relevant to me as I work in the civil service, which is supposed to be politically neutral, but it applies anywhere.

Those who choose to put their pronouns in their signature are making a definitive political statement.

Not putting pronouns in your signature is not an equal and opposite political statement. It’s impossible to say whether those who don’t put their pronouns in are doing so in protest or are merely indifferent.

Several people I work alongside have pronouns in their signatures. They include the head of my division. Because he has his pronouns in his bio, to be equal with him (and others) I should be allowed to state in my signature that I disagree with the practice.

Should I choose to write something professional in my signature, such as “I consider all pronouns should be sex based” it makes it obvious that what we have is a competing situation of rights.

I would argue that stating your pronouns (when they are perfectly obvious) is a political statement and not a useful exercise to help people identify you correctly. A good lawyer should be able to argue such a case, I believe.

This case is unhelpful as this aspect was not explored. It may be that his signature was noted as being unprofessional, and therefore a sacking offence. It appears however that some hyperbolic statement was used about harming people, which a decent lawyer could also have pulled apart.

So I disagree that pronouns or omission is an equal position. I would very much like to see this case properly argued, or preferably a better case, where there was no question of unprofessional conduct, beyond the equally unprofessional conduct (in my opinion) of including your political position on pronouns in your signature by listing them.

It probably would have been a better strategy to put something like ze/zir and then complain to HR and threaten to sue every single time a colleague got it wrong.

...except that being confronted with a wall of sheherhehimtheythem pronoun people when all you want is to access county services is hardly likely to constitue access without barrier or prejudice, now is it? I might go so far as to call it an unsafe environment, especially if it's a municipal institution running a swimming pool and I want to ask them about access to the ladies' showers.

Most public bodies have strict rules about signatures. Employees can’t just add whatever they like.

Although the policy didn’t give an exhaustive list what he added weren’t actual pronouns. There is no reasonable expectation that someone would actually use what he wrote to refer to him in every communication. He and her are actual pronouns whether you agree with particular individuals using them or not. He had the option not to add any.

His beliefs weren’t the problem. He was being silly and sounds full of self importance.

Yes he should have got a lawyer involved. After following the many ETs on here it seems that defending yourself is really difficult. Also I think lawyers would have probably have given him advice on the likelihood of winning the case from the start and may have advised him not to bother. Good for him for making a stand. It does make you wonder if he’d taken the opposite direction and come up with some neo pronouns that could be changed regularly or depending on context etc or even suggested ‘no pronouns to be used’ and complained when they inevitably were how the Council would have reacted.

As it was highlighted elsewhere that more general accusations of bullying and harassment by the Council (and I also read something about lack of complaints being resolved) made it sound like a nasty place to work.

(HR seem to have suggested looking for less 'offensive' wording that might have this effect, but he wasn't having it).

I wish they'd suggest to men who claim to be women, that their wording is offensive. No doubt they 'wouldn't have it' either, but that would be ok of course. It's sickening.

He was being silly and sounds full of self importance.

Lol. The irony.

I agree with PriOn1's post. A colleague or boss who puts pronouns in their signature is informing you that they believe the culturally-assigned sex roles of men and women are in fact innate. They believe in masculinity and feminity being the deciding factor of who is a man and who is a woman. It's a massive warning about what they really think and also that they are the type who will get you sacked if you challenge their sexist thinking.

Fo/Ad - in homage to Green Day’s epic Fuck Off & Die?

To be fair, I strongly suspect my “big boss” probably just thinks he’s being supportive of “trans rights” and DEI and hasn’t thought much about it, but it does give me pause for thought and add to my reluctance to raise this as an issue.

Like many others, I don’t really want to risk my job and am unwilling to rock the boat when all this is effectively optional at present. It would be different if someone was insisting I put pronouns in. Then I would object. It’s an uncomfortable position to be in though.

This it has got so ridiculous.Sacked for being clever probably much frowned upon in the council.

A colleague or boss who puts pronouns in their signature is informing you that they believe the culturally-assigned sex roles of men and women are in fact innate.

No it doesn’t mean that at all. It can just mean they believe people have the right to make their pronouns known or make other people feel more comfortable.

Pronouns aren’t really a big thing where I work but the few people who do state them certainly don’t believe culturally assigned sex roles are innate. Far from it.