Misgendering - LGBT allies training

[BlueAntelope]

We recently had LGBT allies training at work, jointly run by our LGBT staff network and HR, with an external trainer doing most of the talking.

The trainer, and other members of staff from the network and HR, said a couple of things I wasn't sure if they were quite right.

The first was that non-binary identities are probably covered under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. The trainer then talked about the jaguar land rover employment tribunal at length and didn't mention another tribunal that had found something different.

The second was that misgendering would likely be harassment if it was intentional, deliberate or persistent, but that accidental misgendering happens and people should apologise and move on quickly. Allies were advised to correct other members of staff if they got pronouns "wrong".

I have a new non binary colleague in my team who uses the pronouns they. This colleague started while I was out of the office for a couple of months and I have returned to everyone else in the habit of calling them they, but I am struggling to use the pronouns they would prefer. Just less practice, and also I'm sleep deprived with young children and some health issues so finding the "right" words in the moment is tough right now. I'm generally better at remembering in writing.

I don't have the time or energy to fight any type of fight right now, so trying to go with the flow whatever I privately think. But I'm worried I could get into trouble if I make the same mistake with pronouns a few times in a row.

I have a good relationship with my manager currently and new colleague seems very pleasant and we actually have quite a lot in common in terms of interests inside and outside of work.

Just interested to know my position should anything start to happen.

Barra Kerr received a seven day ban on MN for this article.

Pronouns are rohypnol. They lower our defences. We stop feeling the danger or safety we feel when we use incorrect pronouns.

We do not know if the OP's colleague is a man or a woman.

Think about that. If the OP's colleague is a woman, which I admit from the language used (seems very pleasant) is my understanding, then nothing to worry about. Let's just be nice. Polite.

But if the OP's colleague is a man, maybe we would all be a bit more wary. Why is a man "non-binary"? Is he being intimidating? If the OP doesn't use they/them, will she be threatened? Is he more likely to go to HR and not waive it off?

Pronouns matter, even in this thread about a complete stranger, who may be perfectly innocuous.

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/peakoilpetroleumandpreciousmetals/must-read-pronouns-are-rohypnol-by-barra-kerr-t63203.html

A word on that Jaguar case those EDI trainers love to quote .

Firstly it was a first level Employment Tibunal so sets no precedent in case law. The legal person representing the appellant was not even a solicitor. Worst of all the judge who presided over the case a very few short months later was disciplined for being inebriated whilst hearing a case and i understand not sat on any case since .

The said EDI trainers never mention this bit .

This case was last year and said NB is not a protected characteristic. It also says that the Landrover case does not apply now because the FWS case has superseded it. Paraphrasing but that is the gist.

https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/h-lockwood-v-cheshire-and-wirral-nhs-foundation-trust-and-others-2401211-slash-2024-and-2407178-slash-2024

As I understand it, GC beliefs are protected and Maya's case and subsequent many employment tribunals say so.

I'm not aware of any cases that have found gender ideology as a belief is protected, but then I'm not sure anyone has been fired for those beliefs, so the cases wouldn't have come about.

Gender Reassignment is protected but doesn't include NB and you can't legally be NB in the UK. Court cases attempting to have failed https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyve4m79e6lo
So someone can't even be NB in legal fiction.

Even if someone has a GRC, sex still means biological sex as confirmed by FWS case.

To all of the heretics here, LOL:

Despite the lack of legal recognition, employment tribunals have established that non-binary and gender-fluid individuals are protected from discrimination and harassment under the "gender reassignment" characteristic of the {Equality Act 2010 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents}.

Oh @NumbersGuy surprised took you so long to pipe up…
so yet again, a heretic is someone who won’t bow to someone else’s demands?

If employment tribunal decisions aren't precedential they haven't established anything.

But aside from that, they aren't making any sense. Section 8 applies to a person "proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex."

What has that got to do with identifying as non-binary?

I don't think that you understand what is actually being demanded of people when someone requires you to use preferred pronouns.
Firstly using wrong sexed, made up or grammatically wrong pronouns for someone they are insisting that you partake in an act of religious observance, even when it goes against your legally protected religious and/or atheism.
Secondly preferred pronouns involve both compelled speach and thought.
Both of these points show that preferred pronouns are not legally enforceable as nobody has the right to demand that anyone else partakes in an act of religious observance for any religion, nor does anyone have the right to compelle someone else's speach or thoughts.
Freedom of religion and atheism are cornerstones of all human rights along with freedom of speach and thought.
I find it very disturbing that you would come on to this thread to castagate women for standing up for our rights of freedom or religion, belief and freedom of thought and speach.
Also nobody should have to apologise for using correct sex pronouns for anyone regardless of how they identify and any policies that demand the use of preferred pronouns is illegal belief discrimination. Requiring people to repeatedly correct the speach of another member of staff would be both employer sanctioned bullying and belief discrimination.
So yes this is a big thing to ask and just having policies that require the above behaviour is going to find the employer and any member of staff adhering to it at serious risk of losing an employment tribunal.
Oh and the law is extremely important and relevant here btw so your attempt at emotional manipulation if used in real life is a sure fired way of being called out as a bullying bigot

I am mainly concerned that as a tired working mum to small children and currently feeling a bit preoccupied about a health issue, that always having the mental energy to focus on my new colleagues pronouns is a bit unrealistic.

I don't want to upset new colleague, but am worried about mistakes being weaponised, especially due to the current climate at work with a potential restructure being mooted.

I'm more comfortable just using their name and though I do have gender critical beliefs I'm not against using colleagues preferred pronouns in this context. But I also don't want to be apologising for not remembering to use their preferred pronouns as does happen when I'm not concentrating hard on it. I also won't be "correcting" other people if they don't use the preferred pronouns either.

I would have more issues with pronouns if things were different in relation to for example single sex spaces as you need to be able to clearly explain why it's a problem, but that isn't an issue here.

Having to constantly watch what you say is tiring, and I don't have a lot of extra energy for this stuff.

One colleague knows I'm gender critical (So is she) and I'm worried that if new colleague were to know that it might be an issue for them.

I've raised it anonymously internally, probably won't be doing anything else and will just be trying to get on with work and forget about this stuff.

I generally like things to be accurate and correct (usually a good thing at work) and I have a hard time not speaking up about things if I think they're wrong (this is much less good at work as I'm not good at work politics).

Anyway, hopefully nothing will come to pass and I'll just try to keep my head down and get on with work. Ironically I only went on the training as I wanted to show some support and willing for new colleague who I quite like.

One colleague knows I'm gender critical (So is she) and I'm worried that if new colleague were to know that it might be an issue for them.

It is so wrong that GC beliefs have to be hidden to avoid upsetting others. Nobody would accept this with religious beliefs.

It shouldn’t be an issue but it gets made into an issue by workplace bullies enforcing u hateful policies on compelled speech.

OP is worried that she will suffer consequences from her employer if she doesn’t alter her deeply embedded speech patterns according to the demands of her colleague and the enforcers in the company and the company he making no attempt to balance the rights of all its employees, just focusing on the unreasonable demands of some.

That is a major issue. Why would you not have just a tiny bit of sympathy for a mum if littles, stressed and frazzled and understandably worrying for her job?

I don’t know why you are suggesting anyone should apologise for not using the ‘pronouns’ she specifies. ‘Pronouns’ are used according to the sex of the person you are referring to. Everyone has a sex.

Can't you just say 'Barry' or 'Loretta' or whatever their name is? If that's easier. I think you'll get used to it. It's not malicious and you'll make an effort to not do it so that's all you can do.

People may not think NB is legit as an identity but it's fair enough to just call people what they ask.

I’m sorry you’re struggling; this is 100% why we shouldn’t be being coerced to use compelled speech.

It’s an extra brain burden for some which in some working environments would seriously distract from more important priorities. Eg high pressured situations where split second decisions must be made and relies on team work.

I speak from experience and the added extra mental load was an issue when I was also struggling with sleep deprivation and a health issue that directly affects cognition.

that was meant to say ‘unlawful policies’.

I’m sure but was just a name change that OP would have no issue with it. It’s the demand (I’ll call it a demand because it sounds clear there may be consequences if OP doesn’t comply) to use incorrect words that go against the habit of a lifetime.

I think of pronouns and various similar parts of language as ‘autopilot’ language. You don’t have to fully engage your brain to say the right word as your brain knows at a sub conscious level when you are talking about either a man or a woman and from birth, you have been taught the correct words relating to those sexes.

It’s a big ask of a colleague for purposes of vanity. The person asking feels superior or somehow special compared to us ‘bog standard’ women who don’t spend hours contemplating our self actualised ‘identity’ and requires us to give them special treatment to reinforce that ‘special’ feeling.

“This person is your colleague just living their life and like you said yourself, a nice person that you like so just do your best as I'm sure they'll understand if you get their pronoun wrong occasionally. The Law here isn't really relevant is it, be polite and kind as this person has been to you. I cannot see the issue.”

Demanding (it is coercive if someone’s job security is threatened by a ‘request’) that people use personalised language such as avoiding well established English language conventions just for that specific person is indeed a problem.

That you cannot see the issue, is the issue.

I know what you're saying but it's not that difficult to get used to. I managed to do it a few times for family members and yeah, I got it 'wrong' a few times but then it just comes naturally.

But why should anybody have to get used to it?

Why should I get used to using compelled speach and forced religious observance just because somebody else holds those beliefs? And what other religions should be able to compelle other people to follow their religious tenants?

Page Not Found. Obviously a dud link, Numbers,

He put a wiggly bracket in the link. Doh! Schoolboy error, Numbers. Must Try Harder (in many ways)

Correct link:
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

To me I'm not bothered by getting used to it. I don't really know many people I'd want to offend for no reason.

I don't think that penis owners are anything other than men but if someone doesn't like being called 'he/she' to their face then I'd just try and avoid it.

And yet, it is actually pretty narcissistic to expect others to change the very well established conventions of the English language to suit their personal philosophical belief.

We have seen some very illustrative demonstrations of what happens when people choose to do this so they don't 'offend' others on MN recently. Where we have male people doubling down that they are 'female' because no one they know has ever used male language to refer to them since they transitioned. Therefore that male poster has stated clearly that they are not going to stop using female single sex provisions.

It is your choice, of course. However, it is not a decision that has no consequences collectively or to the individual. Those with those identities rely on people not wanting to offend them to solidify the justifications for their own personal choices and decisions. After all, there are no biological markers that indicate a transgender identity, it is purely belief with a foundation in philosophical theories.

Yeah you're not wrong. I guess I kind of place it as a mental illness. And the only way they can be sane is by being called something different. So I suppose it's out of sympathy and politeness.

The thing is if I met someone who was being NB or trans and they behaved badly towards me I would be much more likely to just call a spade a fucking shovel.

Look up.agp.its more likely to be a fetish if were talking about men