Pronouns mandated in new code of conduct

[Imbrocator]

My place of work has recently sent though a new code of conduct, and I’m curious if anyone has any advice on whether what they’re requesting is worth challenging.

As some background, the place is a charity supporting small creative businesses with workspace. Anyone within their sites, and any of their employees, are required to abide by their code of conduct in order to maintain space there - this as a policy has just been introduced.

The points that stuck out to me are:

• A requirement to ask people their preferred pronouns and use them
• To avoid micro aggressions (described as often ‘unintentional’ negativity towards protected characteristics - how can we avoid unintentionally causing offence??)
• Their EDI statement and various internal communications seems to regularly mix up Equality and Equity, two approaches which as far as I can tell are often in opposition to one another.

My partner’s advice is to leave it be and keep my head down, but I’m genuinely curious if as a charity offering space to small businesses they have more leeway to demand this sort of thing than an employer would. As is being so ably demonstrated in the Peggie case, the ability to use pronouns that reflect reality is a core tenet of a gender critical belief, but perhaps they as an organisation fall outside of the normal scope?

Any thoughts would be much appreciated!

Get in touch with Sex Matters. They have loads of useful info and you can get advice.

• A requirement to ask people their preferred pronouns and use them
• To avoid micro aggressions (described as often ‘unintentional’ negativity towards protected characteristics - how can we avoid unintentionally causing offence??)

I think you could gently point out the contradiction between these two points. It’s arguably a micro-aggression to ask people to state pronouns when some people might not be sure or don’t want to e.g. if they’re not sure how they want to define themselves, or if they’re gender critical and don’t want to, or if they just don’t care what people refer to them largely when they’re not present.

I would assume best intent and ignorance and come from the stance of gentle education, rather than going in all guns blazing.

No they cant mandate any of that its compelled speach, forced acts of religious observance and blatant discrimination against gender critical beliefs. Basically its a slam dunk win for anyone who wants to sue them

That’s a really good point, thank you. I do think it’s coming from a good place but there are some very uncomfortable implications from those good intentions!

No they must not discriminate against gender critical under the Act
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10

10Religion or belief
(1)Religion means any religion and a reference to religion includes a reference to a lack of religion.
(2)Belief means any religious or philosophical belief and a reference to belief includes a reference to a lack of belief.
(3)In relation to the protected characteristic of religion or belief—
(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular religion or belief;
(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same religion or belief.

If you do an advanced search you should be able to find a number of threads on the topic

Thank you for this. Do you think they as a charity who have an interview process for who they choose to support have the ability to be more discriminatory about who they choose to let use their space than say, an employer would?

are you asking whether they could have an internal policy which says that essentially they would exclude orgs that don't want to comply with their stuff on pronouns?

No they are on par with an employer and can not discriminate at all.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/13

13Direct discrimination
(1)A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.
(2)If the protected characteristic is age, A does not discriminate against B if A can show A's treatment of B to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(3)If the protected characteristic is disability, and B is not a disabled person, A does not discriminate against B only because A treats or would treat disabled persons more favourably than A treats B.
(4)If the protected characteristic is marriage and civil partnership, this section applies to a contravention of Part 5 (work) only if the treatment is because it is B who is married or a civil partner.
(5)If the protected characteristic is race, less favourable treatment includes segregating B from others.
(6)If the protected characteristic is sex—
(a)less favourable treatment of a woman includes less favourable treatment of her because she is breast-feeding;
(b)in a case where B is a man, no account is to be taken of special treatment afforded to a woman in connection with pregnancy F1, childbirth or maternity].
F2(7). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(8)This section is subject to sections 17(6) and 18(7).

They are providing a service. They can't discriminate on this basis.

"We will not provide service gender critical people who don't recognise preferred pronouns" is not ok.

In terms of law it is on a par with saying we refuse to provide a service to someone on the basis of their religion.

As long as a service user / customer otherwise treats someone with respect they are fine - they do not have to use pronouns.

They are opening themselves up to the possibility of being taken to court.

This is about risk management. They are exposing themselves to risk. You pointing this out should be a neutral thing rather than admission of your own beliefs.

The EDsi policy could constitute harassment against those with the protected characteristics of ‘belief’ - especially GC belief. Not so much a ‘microagression’ as a clear statement of discrimination

You might find Freedom in the Arts interesting/helpful: https://www.freedominthearts.com

For clarity I would want to know whether the pronouns I'm asked for are supposed to reflect my sex or my gender identity, as these are different things and people might answer differently depending on what it is that is intended to be communicated.

If they say "whichever you prefer" I'd still need to know which it is that people are interpreting it to be.

I think it's a reasonable question but I suspect they'll tie themselves in knots trying to answer.

If they are recording any of this then they need to abide by gdpr. In essence can’t or shouldn’t collect data unless you can justify it for providing a service or job

Other posters have much more useful things to say than I have, but one thing I recall from a similar thread was the advice to say that you are worried that the organisation might get itself into legal trouble in light of court cases such as Forstater etc etc.
Purely out of concern for the wellbeing of the organisation, of course😇

Indeed and the eg police at pride case is a good starting point of being Shocked! that it is a PC when you tripped over other case law in the newspaper
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4910748-court-casesjudicial-reviewsetetas?page=8&reply=145730494

And landed slap bang in the middle of Forstater🤷‍♀️

Luck no harm was had🤞

If you don't want to argue from a GC perspective, you can also point out that putting clients on the spot about pronouns is problematic for any who are questioning their gender identity but don't yet feel ready to disclose that to your organisation.

When even Sex Matters calls it harassment…

"Do I have to use other people’s preferred pronouns?
It depends. It might be a reasonable expectation to refer to colleagues, customers or students with the pronouns and title they prefer, or at least to avoid using pronouns or language that refers to their sex if it makes them uncomfortable.
Calling someone “he” or “sir” repeatedly to their face when they wish to be called “she” or “madam” when there’s no good reason to do so is likely to be harassment, so policies to avoid this are likely to be justified. A better approach might be to use a person’s name and try to avoid personal pronouns altogether.
Employers should recognise that using a person’s preferred pronouns out of courtesy doesn’t mean you believe they are the opposite sex or that you agree to share changing, washing, toilet or sleeping accommodation with them. These are all separate questions with different justifications."

sex-matters.org/posts/updates/pronouns/

Is there not a case pending about Lambeth Council and letting a property to a Lesbian Group? The Council trying to impose it's policy of inclusion on an outside organisation.

Thanks everyone, some really good advice here. Thank you @IrmaBunt for the link to freedom in the arts - I hadn’t heard of them before!

So difficult to explain to colleagues why I don’t want to ask students to give their preferred pronouns when they think they’re being kind and respectful.