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.

No thank you.

Yeah I do know about that. I have to say I've never knowingly met a transwoman. I'm not sure how I would deal with it tbh as if they were clearly trying to encroach on female spaces I wouldn't be happy and would say so.

I hear you.

I understand that some people will feel they have to do this to remain in their workplace or to keep family and loved ones happy. However, sadly, your sympathy will ultimately not be kind to those people who are under the impression that they really have changed sex or are 'no sex category' at all.

Because eventually the material reality of their situation in the UK will mean that they will be excluded from the single sex provisions that they are the opposite sex to access. Remember there was a man from Australia who made a fuss in a bar in London because he was 'gender fluid' and because he was in 'woman' mode tried to use the female toilet. The female bouncer tried to block him but his female friends surrounded him and forced her to let him in. The bloke uses male toilets most days, but declared he was 'unsafe' in them when he was in woman mode.

Of course, those male people who claim to have been using female toilets for decades in the UK will find themselves being excluded soon too. And they will be hurt and angry. Because they claim everyone supports them because they use the language.

Which tribunals have established that about non binary please?

Poor Numbers stopped by to remind us he still doesn't want to understand that first-tier Employment Tribunals are incapable of setting legal precedent.
Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover was in 2018 & as PPs have observed, it did not magic enbies into legal existence, & other ETs faced with enbies have found no legal grounds on which to indulge them.

As mentioned above, the Court of Appeal knocked back our American friend quite recently but we have a 2020 Supreme Court case too; https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2020_0081_judgment_557c0b206c.pdf

OP's colleague might as well have marched in & told everyone that s/he's of the Elven folk & requires to be referred to using High Elvish pronouns.

I always like to chuck in a variant of ‘gosh, how interesting, and how does that fit in with other protected characteristics then? I don’t want to get this wrong, where will I find the equalities Impact assessment please?‘ if I’m confronted with any kind of madcap tripe that overpromotes any sufficiently well promoted group.

Alas, I haven’t had chance in the gender context, my career path is more …. Industrial, shall we say. But it does work well. Because they never do have one.

Producing an EIA for compelled speech would be a doozy.

I wasn't asking you to do something or offering you anything. So idk what the 'no thank you' is for.

If you wish to call NB or trans people their bio sex repeatedly to their face go right ahead.

Humans are available in only male or female versions, it's bad enough that we have ID documents legally falsified for people who want to pretend they're the opposite sex, I'm not playing ridiculous make-believe games with people who want to pretend they're special little sunbeams.

Bollocks! Quote:

Gender reassignment

(1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is 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.

(2)A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

(3)In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—

(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person;

(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to transsexual persons.

And just to spell it out those who claim this make up life style choice of "non-binary and gender-fluid"

are clearly not covered by a law that refers to a process where for legal purposes someone is said to that changed their sex, and so have both their biological sex and their "legal sex".

So clearly someone who is "non-binary" or "gender-fluid" is clearly stating that as far as they are concerned they are not regidly anthing, be it sex or gender.

So therefore cant be aspiring to a GRC or progressing towards gaining one they were they would no long be "fluid" or "non-binary".

As I said, that's fine by me.

On cue, on another thread we are again being told that the majority of women most certainly believe that some male people are women because no one uses male language for those male people except for tools of the far right and religious conservatives.

You do understand that colluding with delusion is not in any way kind?

Edited for dyslexia

Can you cite a precedent? What you say is entirely at odds with the case cited above, H Lockwood v Cheshire and Wirral NHS Foundation Trust and Others

That’s only an ET decision, but if you k ow of any higher level court it would be helpful to read.

As opposed to having to collude with delusional ideas right in my face?

I don't think anyone on this thread is suggesting this as an approach. Personally, the only time I could ever imagine someone repeatedly needing to refer to a person's biological sex to their face is if it's relevant to the situation.

For example, if an NB-identified male is in the ladies' changing room and won't leave, despite being told "unfortunately you're in the wrong place", it might be necessary to qualify that by saying "because you're not a woman" or "because you're a man".

Re pronouns: third person pronouns aren't used to people, they are used about people. So the chances of anyone repeatedly saying he/she to someone's face are slim.

Well then I'd just call the person by their name and not use pronouns?
I just wouldn't let it take up that much space in my brain.

IME, that's a paradox unfortunately.

It does take up space in my brain to do this. Sometimes, rather than repeating the name, I rearrange my sentence to avoid needing to use any pronouns at all.

As per one of my previous posts, I've chosen to do this. However, it takes up space in my brain because it requires effort to both remember to do it and to deliver it as an outcome. Sadly, in the majority of cases I suspect that the beneficiary of my effort would probably be unhappy with me, because I'm not actively using any stated preferred pronouns. However, I'm not going to do so.

Ideally, if they actually spotted what I'm doing they'd dedicate some of their own brain space to realise that my approach is the best way I can think of to resolve the conflict between their belief that they have a non-binary (or opposite-sex) gendered soul and my lack of belief in this. However, I suspect that this would be unlikely and that, in their opinion, only my active demonstration of their belief is "correct", according to their values (and that my values apparently mean fuck all).

If anyone were to ask me directly IRL if I was deliberately avoiding using pronouns that differed from someone's sex, I would say yes and I would explain my reasoning. Hopefully that won't ever need to happen but if it does, so be it.