Pronouns in interview questions

[AlexandraLeaving]

I need advice please on dealing with interview questions that are based on a scenario where someone is failing to use someone else’s preferred pronouns. But I am worried about this being identifiable to the organisation and me personally. I’d really value any regulars on here who would be willing to have their brains picked by direct messaging to help me work out how to ensure the questions aren’t being used to enforce a particular ideology.

Sorry to be cryptic and vague - just worried about outing myself in case the specifics of the questions are identifiable.

Thanks in advance for anyone willing to help.

I think if you look at at as a way to respect people's choices then you can't go far wrong.

Or you could think fuck that - why would you want to work there

Happy to have my brain picked.

If an organisation asks any questions based on or around required use of pronouns then that organisation would be leaving themselves wide open to discrimination claim that they would struggle to defend in any court of law.
Also pronouns are not generally used in the presence of the person being spoken about and as such are irrelevant in any real life scenario unless you think that someone would be offended on someone else's behalf (which is ridiculous) so if I was to speak to someone about "jane" a trans women and referred to him as a he or him as long as Jane wasn't in earshot noone has a legitimate reason to complain, although there could be an argument about harassment if he was party to the conversation and his sex was not relevant although there would be a counter argument about compelled speach and forced manifestation of belief (as yet to my knowledgeno crt has ruledon this particular scenario yet).
A simple solution is to referr to Jane as Jane, whilst this won't affirm Jane's gender identity Jane has to accept that he can't compelled anyone's speach nor expect anyone to play along with his delusions and and demands to do so would again likely wind up in court with Jane being the harasser.
What I'm trying to say @AlexandraLeaving is any specific questions about pronouns or there use in an interview is a shit storm waiting to happen there's no legitimate reason to ask them and just asking them would be a form of direct discrimination on the basis of the protected characteristic of belief, in exactly the same way that an employer/organisation asking a woman if she intended to get married or pregnant would be sex discrimination.
Ianal btw

However, if you are oblivious that the courts have already recognized this type of behaviour as tending to be discriminatory on the grounds of belief you might lead to a massive waste of your employers money. Even if the imposer feels this discriminatory practice is morally justified, and that further criminal sanctions would be their preference.

I would probably ask them to use each pronoun in a coherent sentence and I would address each one

Unless you are interviewing for an employment law solicitor or HR team and want to check they are up to date on the latest caselaw, a scenario question on pronouns is unlikely to be appropriate.

Are you facing this as an interviewee or do you already work there and someone has suggested this question for interviews?

As @Crouton19 said, it's only really appropriate for a specialised employment law or HR post, as no one can be forced to use pronouns but on the other hand if a member of staff is deliberately misgendering to be antagonistic then that could be construed as bullying.

Definitely don't use the argument that third person pronouns aren't used in the presence of the person being spoken about - there are plenty of situations when they are, eg in meetings, emails, team announcements.

I'm not sure that's a lawful interview question, and in your shoes if you are in the UK and can't talk to an employment solicitor, I'd talk to ACAS.

Both the UK and the USA have employment legislation that make it unlawful to discriminate against job applicants or employees, based on named protected characteristics, which include belief and disability.

Assuming everything else was equal between you and the other candidates, if you believe that using the wrong pronouns is compelled speech and tried to avoid using them (protected characteristic of belief); or if you would fail a Stroop colour/word test (protected characteristic of disability), it could be an act of discrimination to not hire you. But you would have to be able to prove that's why you weren't hired.

On the other hand if you were being adversarial and deliberately using correct sex pronouns after you had been asked not to, that could be construed as discrimination against someone with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

I would avoid asking ACAS for help on this matter:

www.acas.org.uk/research-and-commentary/supporting-trans-employees-in-the-workplace

''The views in this research paper are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of Acas or the Acas Council.''

Don't avoid using ACAS, expect them to do their job.

Compelled space is always wrong.

Thank you to everyone who commented, and especially to those willing to have their brains picked by DM.

For wider context, I was one of (many) interviewers and was concerned that the way the question was framed risked being seen as biased against those with GC beliefs and also that the mark frame was too vague to allow the multiple interview panels to assess candidate’s answers consistently and fairly, leading to a risk of bias based on individual interviewers’ own personal beliefs. It was more complex than simply being asked whether or not the candidate would use someone else’s preferred pronouns, because of the context of the role being interviewed for and the fact that that person (with preferred pronouns) was not the only person who the candidate would have needed to take account of.

I did not want to be part of a system that had such a high risk of being unfair. I raised my concerns with those responsible for setting the question and they agreed to change it to a more general question about EDI rather than a specific scenario. So now it is framed in a way that does not appear biased against those with GC beliefs or GI beliefs, and I am happy that we, as interviewers, can be fair to all candidates. Thanks for the help getting to that point.

Well done @AlexandraLeaving it sounds like a very fair solution to a tricky issue.

@Hoardasurass

…forced manifestation of belief (as yet to my knowledgeno crt has ruledon this particular scenario yet)

Wouldn’t Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others [2018] UKSC 49 be relevant to some degree?

Although they (the company) are likely to say it’s about showing respect to colleagues rather than proclaiming a particular belief?

@pigletinthewoods that case was about a shop refusing to provide part of a specific service (they would bake the cake and plain ice it but not write a specific message on it) so it's not quite the same.
In this case it would about what constitutes harassment in the workplace vs compelled speach. Would simply refusing to use pronouns for Jane and merely referring to him as Jane be harassment (highly unlikely) or would you need to be constantly referring to his sex and using the correct sexed pronouns (when it's not relevant). Would speaking about jane to another colleague out with Jane's presence and referring to him as he/him be harassment (also unlikely) if not would it be harassment if he over hurd or was part of the conversation. This would also have to be balanced against the rights of Jane's colleagues not to be harassed by Jane's, with his constant demand to compelle their speach, belief and religious practices both in and outside of Jane's presence.
I would expect that continually referring to Jane as he/him in his presence would be harassment but not when he wasn't present, also I would expect that refusing to use any pronouns for Jane and just using his name would not be harassment. However if Jane was continually demanding that his colleagues use she/her pronouns for him in any circumstances that would be Jane harassing his colleagues.
As I'm not a lawyer I can only make a layperson guess at what a crt would consider a reasonable/sensible compromise until someone takes it to crt and a judge rules on it noone can truly say

But that case was about compelled speech, the issue wasn’t baking a cake, it was whether the bakery owner had to bake a cake with a certain message on it that they didn’t agree with:

(…) But that is by the way: what matters is that by being required to produce the cake they were being required to express a message with which they deeply disagreed.

55. Articles 9 and 10 are, of course, qualified rights which may be limited or restricted in accordance with the law and insofar as this is necessary in a democratic society in pursuit of a legitimate aim. It is, of course, the case that businesses offering services to the public are not entitled to discriminate on certain grounds. The bakery could not refuse to provide a cake - or any other of their products - to Mr Lee because he was a gay man or because he supported gay marriage. But that important fact does not amount to a justification for something completely different - obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed. In my view they would be entitled to refuse to do that whatever the message conveyed by the icing on the cake - support for living in sin, support for a particular political party, support for a particular religious denomination. (…)

Agreed @pigletinthewoods however the message writing was part of a service that they offered to all customers but refused to offer to the claimant in that case due to their protected beliefs. When it comes to Jane and his colleagues that would come under employment law which is slightly different although I would hope that the bakers case could be cited in any employment tribunal.
You and I can debate what we think the outcome of such a case would be but until it happens we won't know.
Thought I will say that such a case would be a perfect situation for gender identity theory to be put to the granger test as if it failed the test (which I can't see how it wouldn't) calling Jane he/him couldn't be harassment could it?

Yes, they did not refuse baking a cake, just not a cake with that message that went contrary to their beliefs.

I think here the issue at stake would be: should someone be compelled to deny the material reality in order to validate someone else’s belief?

Because, for gender realists/gender critical people, it’s only the material reality that exists, so they are in effect asked to deny it in order to validate a belief they do not share.

🤔

I wonder though if the matter wouldn’t get infantilised to the point of ‘we’re only asking XYZ to be kind to their colleagues, why wouldn’t they?’ Not seeing the bigger picture can be convenient sometimes.

I wonder though if the matter wouldn’t get infantilised to the point of ‘we’re only asking XYZ to be kind to their colleagues, why wouldn’t they?’ Not seeing the bigger picture can be convenient sometimes.
I expect in a employment tribunal it would be minimised to what constitutes harassment rather than free speech/belief or forced manifestation of belief.
@pigletinthewoods whilst I agree with your sentiment I fear that in law the best we can expect is a reasonable comparison which makes noone happy but protects women and children's rights/spaces but still acknowledges people's gender beliefs in some way