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 .

If David or Omar are offended by being offered a biscuit, they are too sensitive. And I speak as someone with my own religious observances that I entirely don't expect other people to keep track of.

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.

I'll go further. It's my choice whether to call boss A as Mr Smith, Bob, or Smithy, and even if boss B tells me to call her by her first name I may well choose not to do so. If I continue to call her Ms. Jones then that's my prerogative, and she would be unreasonable to be offended by it. Saoirse's pronunciation is easy to remember, even if I have to look up her spelling, which I'm quite willing to do, but even if I don't remember or can't be bothered to do either it doesn't rise anywhere close to a claim for harrassment in a tribunal, nor should it.. The whole analogy is stupid and wrong.

Getting offended because someone offers you a biscuit ONCE would be too sensitive, and would not result in a disciplinary in any sensible organisation, and it should be exactly the same with pronouns - as I literally said " with SHARED understanding that occasionally this might read slightly stilted and sometimes people might forget and shouldn't be penalised."

Repeatedly offering somebody a biscuit after being told they were fasting, and/or saying that fasting for religious reasons was stupid/unhealthy/ridiculous absolutely would be inappropriate and could result in disciplinary proceedings.

Same with the name example. Yes you could choose to keep calling Sadie 'Ms Jones' if you wanted to be excessively formal but the reverse doesn't apply - if she wants to be called Ms Jones and you insist on referring to her by her first name, again, yes, you could get in trouble for it. You can't pick and choose parts of the analogy and then call it stupid.

No.

It doesn't matter how many times I thoughtlessly call Smithy "Mr. Smith" or offer Fatimah a biscuit during Ramadan. I cannot be accused of violating their dignity.

Obviously if I offer the one religious Jewish guy prawn crackers four times a day to wind him up, that's different. But we're not talking about intending to wind someone up by referring to them - not even in their presence! - as "she" instead of "they". Entirely different.

You can't pick and choose parts of the analogy and then call it stupid.

Yes I can. As an analogy it's stupid.

I cannot remember any of the things you listed. I got to the end of secondary school without learning the names of everyone in my 150ish-strong year group. It took me a whole year to learn all my classmates' names.

Did I mention being autistic? People ADHD often have similar problems, likewise dyslexia.

Saying "they aren't significant efforts" is actually rather ableist.

If you've met them, how do you not know how they want to be referred to? If you've met them and they've not said anything, I'd assume they're ok with she/ her pronouns. I'm still curious what would make you think otherwise.

You'll have to trust me on this. All I'm interested in at this point is the legal position, as I've said repeatedly. Anything to add to the cases already shared?

@SirChenjins if you are concerned that she might bring her whole activist self to work it might be a good idea to check out your works policies on religion, politics and bullying asap.
If your work has a policy of no political campaigns or flags, badges and stickers etc, it would be a good idea to have a copy at hand to show her when you need to have the inevitable discussion about her progress flag etc.
Same for the religion policies for when she starts banging on about gender ideology.
If you have to have conversations about either of these policies and/or pronouns you can almost guarantee that you and/or your other staff will be accused of bullying.
Good luck with this

I've already had a look @Hoardasurass but there's no policy that specifically deals with this issue. I suspect that the recent high profile cases in my sector has made them nervous of committing pen to paper.

Ooh that's unfortunate that there's no specific policies its also good news for you as they are watching what's going on in tribunals and have paused to think and are hedging their bets @SirChenjins.
If you are fair and walk the tightrope and the nb woman complains about you or your staff she will get a nasty surprise as it sounds like they dont want to be the next NHS Fife with a Dr Uptons false allegations as a main witness

Has anyone mentioned this case yet?

I:d forgotten about it but it is in the field of employment law
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6926ec33a245b0985f0340aa/Haech_Lockwood_v_Cheshire_and_Wirral_NHS_Foundation_Trust_and_others_2401211_2024___2407178_2024.pdf

Yes, it has been widely discussed on this thread.

Bullying an employee because they're non-binary isn't heroic, or making a stand against anything.

It's really easy to use they/them pronouns, and deeply unprofessional to target someone for being different. They aren't posing, just being themselves.

If your main concern is singling out, targeting, humiliating, disrespecting & bullying this person (which is what refusing to use their pronouns is) then you can expect a summons from HR. End of. Horrible behaviour.

While being non binary may not be protected under gender reassignment it would be covered under beliefs . As the judge said in the forstater hearing you cannot use your beliefs to create a hostile environment & that the ruling didn't set a legal precedent.
Surely you have more important things to do

Bullying an employee because they have GC views and refuse to bow down to demands they adhere to an ideology that supports the mutilation of children, threats of violence, rapists in the female estate, the removal of women's rights and so on and on, and is one they can't and won't support isn't heroic, or making a stand against anything.
It's really easy to accept that no-one can be compelled to use wrong sex pronouns, and deeply unprofessional to target someone for being not acquiescing to your demands when you are not present. They aren't posing, just being themselves.
If your main concern is singling out, targeting, humiliating, disrespecting & bullying people who hold different views from you (which is simply what refusing to use their pronouns is) then you can expect a summons from HR. End of. Horrible behaviour.

There. Fixed it for you.

It might be really easy for you to use they/them pronouns, but for some of us it isn't. Regardless of any philosophical reasons, cognitive issues with word choices means names are hard enough, but having to discard the clearly obvious option for personal pronoun and then retrieve the "right" one is a whole heap of extra cognitive load. And for some reason possessive pronouns are harder still.

Have they started yet?

It's not "really easy" to use singular they when your eyes are telling you "this person is male" or "this person is female". The tribunal panel in Lockwood vs Cheshire and Wirral NHS slipped up several times, as noted in their judgement.

It's ableist to assume that everyone is capable of smoothly navigating such linguistic speedbumps, as I already outlined upthread.

No, she hasn't started yet.

It wouldn't necessarily be covered by beliefs. There would need to be a legal case to determine that.

Wrong gender ideology has never been put to the grainger test so it is not covered under beliefs and when it is put to the grainger test it will fail as it insists that everyone else must play along which means its NWORIDS.
Also non binary and gender identity are not recognised in UK law, non binary never will and gender identity would need a full explanation that can be tested (nobody has ever been able to give 1).
Refusing to use wrong sex or grammatically incorrect or made up language is not harassment, bullying or creating a hostile environment however insisting/demanding that someone else does would be.
The woman in question can ask and must accept people refusing to do so as long as people don't intentionally and repeatedly use accurate pronouns. She has a name and will have to get used to people using that instead.
Oh and btw the forstsater ruling was an eat so yes it did set precedent.

This is the wrong board to try your TRA tactics of misrepresenting the law

That's really not true. I live with someone who's trans - and using 'he' is just normal to me. It doesn't matter if he isn't binding (something trans men tend to do less when they're accepted btw) he is just "he" to me.

Same as my stepfather is dad, my half-brother's my brother and my friend's adopted child is her child.

I didn't think I could get used to they/them, but now my oldest kid is saying someone non-binary. I have never met this person, have no idea what they look like or what their assigned gender at birth was - and don't care. I use they/them when asking how they are. It's all about practice and broadening your horizons.

It becomes really easy when you know someone who uses they/them. Plus, we all use those pronouns e.g when referring to someone in a profession ( "has the nurse been?" " Yes, they left a while ago") or a colleague you don't know so well.

My children have friends with non-gendered names (Memphis, Phoenix, Zephyr) at school (which I would guess is far more common in a less working-class area than ours). I lose track of which friend is who, and which identify as non-binary, so just use 'them'. Very handy if you have face blindness & can't remember whether Jem is a bit or girl.

It's all about practice, and not being prejudiced towards someone different. Politeness & respect cost nothing.

I filled quite a bit of my bingo card up with those last couple of posts

1, nobody is assigned a gender at birth, out sex is observed and recorded
2, using wrong sexed pronouns is not the same as calling your brother your brother whether full or half hes still your brother, what you choose to call your stepfather is also irrelevant
3, someone who is so psychologically unwell that she self harms if her linguistic demands aren't met belongs in a psychiatric hospital.
4, people with certain disabilities are literally unable to consistently lie about someone's sex
5, other people have rights too so nobody should be expected to use incorrect language because of someone's else's delusional thinking or quasi religious cult