New guidance at work

[farmfreshmilk]

My organisation has just produced new guidance, in which in states that

‘Unlawful behaviour…refusing to recognise someone’s gender identity by deliberately mishandling or deadnaming them, to diminish them’

I’m wondering where this sits with the Forestater decision. Does it mean if I misgender out of gender critical beliefs, NOT to diminish them, I would be ok?

wondering about trying to push back in this item…

Why? Calling someone a name they don’t want to be called is surely not limited to trans. People shorten my name, I hate it. One person does it deliberately even when I’ve repeatedly told them not to. Both men and women have changed their name post marriage and people are able to remember that.

Just use the name they go by, you don’t need to refer to them by their gender. Unless you want to deliberately upset them there is no need not to use the name they like and you don’t have to recognise their gender.

It's not against the law to misgender someone. It may be classed as harassment to do so continually.

They haven't got that right at all.

Yes, it’s tricky as I am generally of the be kind persuasion. However, I do organise home visits and we do have clients that request no males. So sometimes difficult conversations need to be had in this space. The guidance implied that it would not be lawful to do this, which I don’t think is right…

Your clients can absolutely request no males caring for them (or, indeed, no females). It's perfectly legal.

I would query the use of “unlawful” as it is not illegal as such.

I think it is illegal to harass someone and potentially if behaviour is ongoing towards an individual it could potentially be a hate crime.

But to do it in error is quite different ! You are also allowed to not recognise someone’s gender identity - the wording does say that this must be a deliberate act to diminish them which is not the same as accidentally “deadnaming” or requesting a female individual for personal care for example. For that it’s worth I don’t think that wording applies to such a situation.

But it sounds worth clarifying - does your organisation offer single sex care or provide a single sex service or venue or similar.

If they do - then they need to comply with the equality act.

wondering about trying to push back in this item…
You could frame it as being very soon after the Supreme Court judgement and perhaps they should consult lawyers / trade body / other companies / employees (anyone except YouKnowWho!) to make sure they word things properly.

You could also say that it wonderful that they are thinking about their trans employees. Do they have any new guidance re women (AHF) employees, too?

I’d ask how it works in practice. These kind of policies are heavily theoretical and ideological.

What is their stance on use of the Women’s toilets/changing areas (if applicable) and how does that align with H&S legislation and the Supreme Court ruling yesterday

What about Employee Representative groups dedicated to Women’s issues or any training specific to Women’s concerns?

What about ‘Gender’ transparency reporting or Women’s representation on the company board.

are these things rooted in the correct definition of Sex or the definition of Gender?

Thanks @Orangemintcream I think it’s the unlawful element that I would wish to push back on. Yes, we do offer single sex care in some circumstances, so I think it would be worth clarifying . Particularly as there is further direction around unlawful behaviour from clients, without clarifying that clients can refuse personal care from natal males without being unlawful

I don’t think your policy quote is that relevant to the example you gave. The policy is saying don’t deliberately call them the wrong name or say she/he. The person who allocates the home visits to people who want the same sex visitor as them should be able to handle this professionally and surely this happened before the ruling.

The policy is basically saying don’t wind people up for the fun of it. For example Mr Bantz in the office calling Bogdan ‘Bob’ despite being fully able to pronounce his name.

They are creating a bit of a minefield with that wording

How do you demonstrate deliberately or with an intent to demean.

What if the other person doesn’t speak English as a first language and accidentally misgenders. What if they have an ASD and speak factually? What if they are SVI (blind) like one of my family and may rely on the sound of someone’s voice and have no hope of reading a name badge?

Shouldn’t it be a more general anti bullying provision