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 .

Yes the ‘has’ should be a ‘have’, which I think is what you mean. The same would be true if the sentence has been “The singular pronouns ‘she’, ‘her’ and ‘hers’ have been used for centuries” so I’m not sure why you think that error was relevant.

Surprised to find yet another person who claims to have never encountered exchanges such as

“Where is the doctor (singular)?”
”They aren’t here yet”

Unfortunately it's that last Japanese soldier still fighting the war because they cannot admit that they have colluded in the mutilation & irreversible damage to their child for no good reason at all.

“Where is the doctor (singular)?”
”They aren’t here yet”

That is correct English when the sex of the doctor is unknown.

If Dr Brown is male & the speaker knows Dr Brown's sex then the exchange would be

"Where is Dr Brown"
"He isn't here yet"

If Dr Brown is male & the speaker does not know Dr Brown's sex then the exchange would be

"Where is Dr Brown"
"They aren't here yet"

This got deleted. I’m not sure why.

”Hi. My name is 莲花 and I’m your new colleague. If you misspell or mispronounce my name that’s evidence your racist attitude towards me and I’m going to complain to an Employment Tribunal about your harassment.”

Knowing that mammals come in two sexes and that they can't change sex is simply understanding the reality of mammals. As is understanding that Humans are mammals.

Trying to shame or force people into pretending that humans can change sex (or that an individual has no sex) is forcing an unreasonable belief on others.

I don't mind if someone wants to identify as the opposite sex or as non binary - but this is an identity and not physical reality.

I honestly think that all these accusations of bigotry from TRAs is projection. They want to inflict their unreasonable beliefs on the non-believers.

It's that old question that all authoritarian regimes have to answer - what are you going to do with the people who disagree? We know the answer for the gender believers, and it is not to accept that people can have a plurality of views. Only total acquiescence will do.

It's totalitarian in its demands.

It is quite right that someone can ask another person to not call them something that they don't like, it is another thing to demand specific language (especially when it is most likely to be used when the individual isn't present). I don't think that we should be rude to others and in the workplace, people should be professional in their conduct. This goes for the people with identities and those without.

However, forced speech is a step too far. It is double plus bad.

My choice of words is my own. Send me to 101 or the Gulag. I won't obey.

Me too and for say oh dear never mind about it 🤣🤣 i wonder if this one will stay up

I’m not particularly disputing the way in which it is most commonly used. It’s the constant insistence by some posters that it’s absolutely never used as a singular pronoun and, further, if someone did use it as a singular pronoun not one person would understand what was being said. I’ll be honest, I can’t get particularly het up about the use of gender neutral pronouns, but even if I could I wouldn’t be making up spurious arguments about them.

Out in the real world I would simply say "no" or "no, I haven't".

If I really felt obliged to add a time scale, I'd say "no, not since I came in" and maybe even add "five minutes ago".

(I have never in my life said "they hasn't" any more than i have ever said "she have", and I am not going to start now; but then, I am a linguist and I dislike torturing the language to pander to a fad.)

How about “no they haven’t” referring to one person? Or are you another one who has never said that? (Maybe read and understand the whole reply)

Knock off the drama llama routine. It's not our fault that you've decided to limit your intellectual range to "agrees with me" & "hates".

As the old saying goes, if someone wants to pretend they're the opposite sex, that's up to them, if they want us to pretend they're the opposite sex, that's up to us.

As for "non-binary", that has no status in law & means nothing other than, "pretends to be special".

How do the rules you may have been taught at primary school go?

I am
You are
He she or it is
We are
You are
They are.

It follows that "they has" would not be right, but a fad-construction. "They have" is correct but "they" is not singular, it's plural, so I would avoid using it about a single individual.

Thus I would say of an individual either "she has" or "he has". If the person has irritated me enough I might say "it has", but do bear in mind that I wouldn't need to do so in that person's presence, because in that case "you have" would apply (in both singular and plural).

So you’re saying that if you didn’t know the sex of an individual (the doctor, the receptionist, the nurse) you wouldn’t say “they have”? Ok. A lot of people would and do.

I see no need, in your hypothetical example, to use any pronoun for the absent receptionist at all: the words "no, I haven't" seem to me to do the job perfectly well. Or, as I suggested, "No, not since I came in".

Avoiding the hypersensitivities of those who persist in finding offence in things no reasonable person would worry about is something of an art-form, or a game – probably at the expense of the hypersensitive ones, but I can't help how they choose to spend their lives, and the chances are they will never know about it anyway, since by definition "they/them/he/she/it/ver/vim/vigour" are only intended to be used in their absence.

Whether you feel ‘the need’ or not is irrelevant. We were talking about common usage of ‘their’ as a singular pronoun (and as a linguist you’re no doubt aware of its long use in that way) together with a plural form the verb. ‘They have’, ‘they are’ etc. I’m just amused by the constant denial that it is ever used that way and, if it were, no one could understand what was going on.

No, you were. I am tweaking your tail about this tedious insistence.

Ok. It just looked like you completely misunderstood the post you first responded to, but yea let’s go with ‘tail tweaking’.

You seem to be getting off the point here. As you say, 'they' is commonly used for a single person when their sex is unknown. So if you are discussing Dr Jones and you don't know whether they are male or female you'll naturally use the pronoun 'they', as I just did.

It's quite different to use the pronoun 'they' for a person whose sex is known. It is natural to default to the pronoun appropriate for their sex. Using 'they' or an opposite sex pronoun for that person uses a lot more mental effort.

Once more for those at the back.

I’m not particularly disputing the way in which it is most commonly used. It’s the constant insistence by some posters that it’s absolutely never used as a singular pronoun and, further, if someone did use it as a singular pronoun not one person would understand what was being said. I’ll be honest, I can’t get particularly het up about the use of gender neutral pronouns, but even if I could I wouldn’t be making up spurious arguments about them.

I think
"Where is the doctor (singular)?"
"Not here yet."

is a great deal better, as well as being shorter and applying no matter what the doctor thinks it is.

So, not only do we not know what the law is regarding the use of pronouns for people who identify as NB, we appear to not know what the rules of English grammar are when using the third person singular for someone who's sex is unknown.

It all becomes easy for you. More than one person on this thread has explained the cognitive difficulties they have with over-riding their instinctive recognition of a person's sex to adjust to a different set of preferred pronouns. Just because you can't see the cost of the "politeness and respect" you're demanding, doesn't mean it isn't there. The non-binary person isn't the only one whose needs matter here, which as a good boss is what the OP is trying to navigate.

JanesLittleGirl
So, not only do we not know what the law is regarding the use of pronouns for people who identify as NB, we appear to not know what the rules of English grammar are when using the third person singular for someone who's sex is unknown.

And Muphry's Law dictates that when saying people don't know the rules of English grammar....

Good old Muphry

First, there's a difference between remembering the opinions of someone you live with and someone you see far less often. I can remember how my mum takes her coffee, but not how my sister does.

Second, you're probably not neurodivergent, so you probably don't have the mental block about telling lies that a lot of autistic people have.

Third, let me know how far you get with https://s3.mirror.co.uk/click-the-colour-and-not-the-word/index.html I clicked the wrong thing on the second item. That particular game demonstrates nicely how changing and conflicting requirements, comparable in mental burden to people wanting inaccurate pronouns, confuse people and slow their thinking down.