Enby they/them pronouns - what's the law on this?

[SirChenjins]

New person coming into my team who I think may want others to use they/them. I have a standard team signature that I don't want altered, but if my suspicions are correct and she starts bringing her whole enby self to work, where do we stand legally if I or anyone else says nope, not doing that?

I know the moral arguments on each side of the debate so don't want a rehash of the for's and against's, just want to know where I stand in law .

Only in the way using any word or phrase you aren't used to using does.

When you are talking about different beliefs, which is what gender ideology is all about, it is important not to impose one person's belief upon another. Everyone is entitled to their own belief.

The important point is how that belief is expressed. Forcing someone to state words that are against their belief is not an acceptable expression of belief.

Even judges in law courts have said that it's appropriate for each counsel to use the language they are comfortable with and have not enforced pronoun use.

So far, no one has sued the judges or counsel for harassment for not using preferred pronouns.

I swear a lot. I’ve worked with people I know hate swearing. In those circumstances I think before I speak. Is that an undue burden?

Would you insist that those people do swear at work?

Trying to avoid saying something is one thing but actively being forced to say something is very different.

That’s actually a really good analogy.

Yep, I'd probably avoid using pronouns. You've got people on here who, among other things, would actively, for example, say "Lovely to meet you both" to an individual because she is using a 'plural pronoun'. That's going beyond not being forced to say something. It's being a dick for the sake of it.

And we are still, in case we forget, talking about someone who it is assumed will demand certain things, compel speech and kick off if anyone 'gets it wrong', but hasn't actually requested anything.

Thanks for explaining what nonbinary means. So it's just about not feeling "aligned to gender expression of that sex".

And in 2026, that means that we're supposed to pretend that this person doesn't have a sex. Not that she's exactly like a huge proportion of the rest of the population, who aren't so self-obsessed that they think they invented gender nonconformity.

Surely the whole point about claiming to not have a sex is about demanding things from others. What other point is there?

This is true - she might ask, or she might not, which is why I've made it clear from the outset that this isn't an opinion piece but a request for clarification of the legal position in advance of that request so I'm not caught on the back foot and left humming and hawing if she does ask. Inclusivity means acknowledging everyone's viewpoints and creating a safe environment for all.

What you, me or anyone else would or wouldn't do is really irrelevant outwith the legal position I'm trying to establish for my own information.

I don’t think it’s true that everyone (or even most people) who consider themselves non binary think they ‘don’t have a sex’. For some it’s a way to describe their relationship with their sexed body. I also imagine there will be a range in terms of how demanding they are. Some will be reasonable. Someone tried to make the parallel with vegans. I guess for this it would be the difference between a vegan insisting a work meal took place at a vegan restaurant, a vegan who wanted a restaurant with lots of options, a vegan who was happy to go somewhere with one option and one who said “it would be good if we could go here, but if we can’t I get it”.

I don't know. A lot of the people I've heard talk about when they "realised" they were non-binary basically just recount hearing that NB was a label used to describe people who didn't conform to sexist stereotypes. And they thought, "Oh that's me!" and proceeded to embrace the rules of their new cult with vigour.

I'm paraphrasing of course but that is what it boils down to. The one I remember listening to on the radio talked about her epiphany because she'd heard or read about it and things like not wanting to wear dresses or makeup but also not being into stereotypically male clothing either sounded just like her. So she missed the step where she applied any critical thinking to the concept of non-binary and instead "came out".

There's no philosophical depth to it, just "I relate to this personality description so I must fall into this fictional category too". Like being a Swiftie, but accusing people of genocide if they say they're not a fan of her music.

Sorry @SirChenjins if I am repeating other posters, I don't have time to read the thread but have been looking into this as may also have an NB on my team, although I'm not a manager. (My manager is full of Kool Aid). This case is relevant

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

This found that non binary is not a protected characteristic (ie not under gender reassignment).
Legally you can't be NB on documents either and thete have been 3 court elated cases, Ryan mentioned earlier and someone wanting to be X.

As far as I know, while GC beliefs have been found worthy of respectb/ protection, I'm not aware of any cases establishing the same of GI beliefs, but someone will know.

You asked whether other people, some of whom have actual protected characteristics, find themselves subject to "preemptive worrying" from line managers.

Yes, they are, and unlike the OP's concerns about an enby whose identity has no legal recognition, some of that "preemptive worrying" could be seen as illegal discrimination, hence the reference to Pregnant Then Screwed.

However, a failure to carry out some "preemptive worrying", aka "due diligence checks" and "taking advice", could also result in illegal discrimination if the line manager does the wrong thing out of ignorance.

1. I go mute sometimes because the part of my brain that does words just stops working. Other times, the completely wrong word comes out. This is part of being autistic for me. It's getting worse as I go into perimenopause.
2. I'm not sticking to "they" even for unknown people, again I think related to autism meeting perimenopause. I already find myself saying "he" when someone cuts me up at a junction, when I don't actually know the driver's sex.

To switch out such a fundamental and unconsciously selected language component as a sexed pronoun for one that is counter-intuitive is way too big of an ask for me, because of a disability from birth being made worse by my sexed biology.

@Scout2016 gender identity ideology has never been put to the grainger test as they know it would fail.
I really wish that somebody would put it to the testosterone then we could assign it to the dustbin as NWORIDS.

@Scout2016 thank you, that's most helpful 😊

That was my thought too. That they haven't started there yet, so on what grounds are you basing all this on?!
You haven't even met them yet!
Are you going by looks, and what you "expect" a person who looks like "that" to do/say/be?

Point to where I've said I haven't met them?

If you can add to the legal cases already linked to then I'd be really interested. Thanks.

I took this to read that you hadn't yet met them, as you said that they were new to your team.
Although I can see that it was rather ambiguous as it could just mean you don't really know them at all and instead are just making assumptions based on "suspicions".

New person coming into my team who I think may want others to use they/them

if my suspicions are correct and she starts bringing her whole enby self to work

I applaud the OP for having the foresight to investigate a situation before it occurs, to avoid trouble for her team in the future. If I were her manager, I'd give her a bonus.

I read it as someone possibly already in the company, but I guess it could be a completely new starter. I also assumed it has something to do with them adding pronouns to an email signature, as a standard team signature. I suppose the specifics may make a difference, for example if they had them in a signature elsewhere in the company. Although, as others have said, if it’s about emails it may come down to company policy - or the lack of one.

It's ambiguous for a reason, but rest assured I have met them. They don't work for the organisation at the moment.

100% agree this would be the way to go.
Work colleagues aren't your friends or family. You don't have to agree with them about every single thing, or even like them. You can privately think they are complete muppets as long as you manage to engage professionally with them.

Therefore an easy compromise would be that someone who does not want to use pronouns they disagree with solely refers to that person by their name, including in the (comparatively rare) occasions where they need to refer to said colleague in the third person, with SHARED understanding that occasionally this might read slightly stilted and sometimes people might forget and shouldn't be penalised.

It really shouldn't be too taxing for any competent professional to write or say something like "discussed project A with internal legal officer Jane Jones who said xyz. I queried point B and Jane advised abc." Rather than "discussed project A with Jane. She said....."

It's no harder than remembering how everyone likes their tea/coffee, or "don't offer a biscuit to David/Anna/Omar because they're dieting/coeliac/observing ramadan" or "remember not to swear or say "for godssake" in front of Mary because she finds it disrespectful" or "don't ask Tom if he had a nice weekend because he's struggling with his divorce" or "Frederick in accounts likes to be called by his full name but Frederick in legal prefers Freddie" or "boss A likes to be addressed as Mr Smith whereas boss B tells everyone to call her by her first name" or "remember how Saoirse's name is pronounced."

Lots of these things might not come completely naturally and you might privately think they are a bit silly and disagree with some of them, but they aren't significant efforts to make.

It's no harder - but it's infinitely more loaded if someone decides to act like Haech mentioned upthread. I won't have anyone in the team feeling worried about being reported if they make an error.

Ive never known how people take their tea or coffee at work as ive never made anything other than my own at work. But if I had made one wrong I wouldn't have been disciplined for it. That's the difference.