Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Discussing gender issues in the office ‘unwise’, says judge

81 replies

Igneococcus · 19/09/2025 06:29

"It can be considered “injudicious” to express opinions about gender identity issues in casual office chats, employment judge Lesley Murphy said, adding that it was ill-advised because of how those views may be perceived by others."
But if it's "unwise" to talk about gender at work (and it might well be) doesn't that include claiming to be non-binary?

https://www.thetimes.com/article/0ad11f88-681b-4d3f-b612-c2620373f18d?shareToken=02e52f48d5b414b8e5514f1eedcf740b

Discussing gender issues in the office ‘unwise’, says judge

Workers warned against chatting about gender identity as tribunal ruled against non-binary worker in harassment case against charity boss

https://www.thetimes.com/article/0ad11f88-681b-4d3f-b612-c2620373f18d?shareToken=02e52f48d5b414b8e5514f1eedcf740b

OP posts:
PermanentTemporary · 19/09/2025 06:33

I don’t think chatting about your own life should ever be unwise, no, provided some basic rules of decency are observed (I had a co worker once who gave a blow by blow account of her fertility treatment that definitely was unwise).

Completely different to say ‘I was on a demo on Saturday, traffic was mad for hours’ compared to ‘can I bend your ear about Reform/Action Palestine?’ One is just chat, the other is proselytising.

Igneococcus · 19/09/2025 06:40

No, I agree, I don't think it should be unwise to talk about your life to colleagues and I'm lucky that I can talk really quite freely with most of mine, but it seems we're at a stage where it can backfire, though it seems the judge thinks these claims were made up. It be better the judge would have dismissed this because people are allowed to hold these views and express them.
Incidentally, I also had a colleague whose sperm count and sperm motility I knew more about than I really needed to.

OP posts:
borntobequiet · 19/09/2025 06:42

Refreshing.

Imagine trying to provide a service to help those in need and being taken to an employment tribunal by a vexatious, attention seeking, delusional individual such as this.

HaveYouActuallyDoneAnyWashingThisWeekMum · 19/09/2025 06:47

I think it’s best to steer clear of politics, religion and sex as an employee in any workspace.

Equally I think workspaces should not align themselves with a political or ideological issue - so no rainbows in the NHS, no healthcare literature on maternity care or gynaecological cancers that use phrases such as pregnant people or people with cervixes, and no pronouns in email signatures, for example.

MaudlinGazebo · 19/09/2025 06:48

I think it’s the distinction between saying “I’m a Christian/jew/buddhist” etc in the office and having light discussion related to that vs debating the meaning and existence and validity of religion at work. If someone wants to be NB at work fine, I do think it would be unwise to take them to task over it as a general principle. Obviously if they start proselytising and trying to change the work environment for everyone then that’s when it becomes a problem, just as if a Jewish colleague was trying to make the kitchen kosher and asking people not to bring in pork for lunch.

Screamingabdabz · 19/09/2025 07:05

“It is one thing to allege someone espoused a view that there are just two genders (as injudicious as the expression of views on such matters might be considered by some in a casual workplace exchange).“

Wow! So…don’t, what ever you do, go around talking facts. Or stating factual things. Especially ‘casually’. Casually talking facts… that’s sooo dangerous in a workplace. Or ‘espousing’ anything of reality. Goodness! Take a breath before you do that.

Glad someone warned us.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 19/09/2025 07:15

Shame the judge saw fit to wedge that in that unnecessary comment as he dismissed the transphobia claim as "invented" - ie a lie.

Howseitgoin · 19/09/2025 07:18

Screamingabdabz · 19/09/2025 07:05

“It is one thing to allege someone espoused a view that there are just two genders (as injudicious as the expression of views on such matters might be considered by some in a casual workplace exchange).“

Wow! So…don’t, what ever you do, go around talking facts. Or stating factual things. Especially ‘casually’. Casually talking facts… that’s sooo dangerous in a workplace. Or ‘espousing’ anything of reality. Goodness! Take a breath before you do that.

Glad someone warned us.

Some:

Mexicans are rapists = fact.
Arabs are terrorists = fact
Gay people are pedos = fact
Black people commit more crimes = fact
Gender critical people are transphobic = fact

See where this is going?

'Facts' are not only often weaponised but can cause work place disharmony & employers, co workers & customers rightly regard fact shamers as a liability.

Theswiveleyeballsinthesky · 19/09/2025 07:20

Well Natasha sounds like an absolute lying horror so I'm glad they lost their case. Huge sympathy for their manager who was put through the wringer for no doubt expecting Natasha to do the job b they was paid for.

and it's unwise to point out reality ie that there are only two sexes? So the judge is endorsing the chilling effect as Helen Joyce of enforcing compliance through ensuring no one is allowed to bounce reality? Bollocks to that!

Theswiveleyeballsinthesky · 19/09/2025 07:23

Howseitgoin · 19/09/2025 07:18

Some:

Mexicans are rapists = fact.
Arabs are terrorists = fact
Gay people are pedos = fact
Black people commit more crimes = fact
Gender critical people are transphobic = fact

See where this is going?

'Facts' are not only often weaponised but can cause work place disharmony & employers, co workers & customers rightly regard fact shamers as a liability.

That there are only 2 sexes is an actual proveable fact as opposed to your made up nonsense stated above because all of the 'facts' you've listed can be disproved

you really aren't getting any better at this are you

Howseitgoin · 19/09/2025 07:25

Theswiveleyeballsinthesky · 19/09/2025 07:23

That there are only 2 sexes is an actual proveable fact as opposed to your made up nonsense stated above because all of the 'facts' you've listed can be disproved

you really aren't getting any better at this are you

hall of fame game missed the point GIF

Um the point is whether something is a 'fact is irrelevant to work place relations.

Igneococcus · 19/09/2025 07:37

The person who claims to be non-binary and demands special pronouns is the one who brings gender issues into the workplace. It's hard to ignore if you're expected to comply with that persons demands.

OP posts:
DabOfPistachio · 19/09/2025 07:37

Um the point is whether something is a 'fact is irrelevant to work place relations.
This is quite hilarious. But does explain why Howseitg keeps coming up with these absolute bangers. Yes, facts are relevant. In the workplace, on MN and everywhere else.
I don't think anyone could possibly make a worse rebuttal to any argument than 'whether something is a fact is irrelevant'. 🤣🤣🤣

Howseitgoin · 19/09/2025 07:45

Igneococcus · 19/09/2025 07:37

The person who claims to be non-binary and demands special pronouns is the one who brings gender issues into the workplace. It's hard to ignore if you're expected to comply with that persons demands.

You could say the same about a person sporting religious garb. That doesn't mean their beliefs are up for 'discussion'.

Howseitgoin · 19/09/2025 07:46

DabOfPistachio · 19/09/2025 07:37

Um the point is whether something is a 'fact is irrelevant to work place relations.
This is quite hilarious. But does explain why Howseitg keeps coming up with these absolute bangers. Yes, facts are relevant. In the workplace, on MN and everywhere else.
I don't think anyone could possibly make a worse rebuttal to any argument than 'whether something is a fact is irrelevant'. 🤣🤣🤣

Context matters. That you don't comprehend this is why we are where we are….

ArabellaSaurus · 19/09/2025 07:51

Christ. This is not and never should be a reason for a fucking tribunal. It's just a bit of chat, ffs, even if it had happened as the claimant claimed.

HaveYouActuallyDoneAnyWashingThisWeekMum · 19/09/2025 07:53

Howseitgoin · 19/09/2025 07:18

Some:

Mexicans are rapists = fact.
Arabs are terrorists = fact
Gay people are pedos = fact
Black people commit more crimes = fact
Gender critical people are transphobic = fact

See where this is going?

'Facts' are not only often weaponised but can cause work place disharmony & employers, co workers & customers rightly regard fact shamers as a liability.

Erm no. These are not facts.

Are you in the US?

ArabellaSaurus · 19/09/2025 07:53

And a judge chatting about his or her opinions on what people should and shouldn't talk about in the workplace should not be news.

Reform are going to scrap the EA, aren't they?

Howseitgoin · 19/09/2025 07:55

HaveYouActuallyDoneAnyWashingThisWeekMum · 19/09/2025 07:53

Erm no. These are not facts.

Are you in the US?

"SOME"

HaveYouActuallyDoneAnyWashingThisWeekMum · 19/09/2025 07:57

I’m a bit confused. I think there are SOME words missing around your SOME.

Do you mean:

To some people…

or

Some people believe or say that…

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 19/09/2025 07:59

If it's unwise to discuss gender in the office then presumably that also extends to using labels like "cis", asking people what their pronouns are and whingeing about the Supreme Court judgment...right?

PriOn1 · 19/09/2025 08:00

To be fair to the judge, it is a contentious topic, and one that I have long avoided talking about at work, until I am sure that the person I’m discussing it with shares my views.

The problem is not that it’s a contentious topic, the problem is that it’s a very divisive topic and those on one side of it feel entirely vindicated in raising it (announcing pronouns in meetings or putting them in email signatures) where the other side have been unfairly told that their views are so contemptible that they can’t express them.

That situation has become so normalized that many don’t see it. It’s unfortunate that the judge is blind to that socially engineered inequality.

I hope that, in time, it will be seen that virtue signaling your political allegiance to gender ideology will come to be seen as just as contentious as sticking your opinion on abortion in your email signature or announcing it in meetings as you introduce yourself.

Obviously if someone decides to undergo a process of “gender reassignment” in the workplace, the topic will have to be dealt with, but beyond that, it isn’t something anyone should be proselytizing on in the workplace.

AMansAManForAllThat · 19/09/2025 08:01

Howseitgoin · 19/09/2025 07:45

You could say the same about a person sporting religious garb. That doesn't mean their beliefs are up for 'discussion'.

Someone wearing a turban, or other religious dress, requires nothing of me.
Unless I’m in health and safety or see an H&S issue, I have no need to consider or talk about their dress.

Someone expecting me to use the opposite pronouns does.

By the way, your other post makes no sense to English people. Perhaps the use of SOME followed by a list of untruths has a meaning where you are?

typo

HaveYouActuallyDoneAnyWashingThisWeekMum · 19/09/2025 08:02

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 19/09/2025 07:59

If it's unwise to discuss gender in the office then presumably that also extends to using labels like "cis", asking people what their pronouns are and whingeing about the Supreme Court judgment...right?

Quite. It works both ways.

AMansAManForAllThat · 19/09/2025 08:03

Oh! I get it!

He means-
Some Mexicans are…
Some black people are…
etc.

Still not sure of the relevance but it makes marginally more sense.