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 .

I just avoid pronouns entirely because I won't use incorrect sex pronouns. It is a little clunky but it's doable.

I'm doing nothing of the sort - where did I say I'd be emailing my team encouraging them not to refer to her as they if she requests this? Please don't misrepresent my words in that way.

It's interesting that you view a request for clarification on the legal position of not using pronouns as 'combative'.

The singular 'they' and indeed 'them' and 'their' has been in use, in England, for centuries. It's generally paired with a plural form of the verb. If you aren't aware of that, then thats [sic] a you problem.

I don't see the issue. (Non-binary being bollocks aside). If policy is you don't put pronouns in an email then they're not there, if they ask to put them in, you refer them to the policy.

It is used as an indefinite pronoun, which is rather distancing when you are talking about a specific person.

Yes, it should be preferred. In my mind correct for me would be for someone to use she or they when describing me, but it seems to be a very contentious grammatical issue on here! Personally I hate ‘she’ as I’ve grown up with my mother saying ‘she is the cat’s mother’!

But, as I’ve said before, this is pure conjecture. The person hasn’t even started yet, has made no demands, and the OP is projecting what they think the new starter might say or think. It just doesn’t sound like the best start to a job, or how to foster a good team working environment.

Not in the way you and TRAs are trying to use them or claim that they are used so definitely a you problem as you're the one who sounds ridiculous speaking that way

I didn't say you were, but you did mention telling your team that they wouldn't have to use the pronouns however and I'm afraid this could look like encouragement not to - you have to expect that is how it would be framed.

Nor did I call your question combative. I was not the only poster to use this word either. Your stance however that this employee is going to roll in and start demanding this and that does come across as combative.

Forget the grammar! Any time someone identifies themselves as non-binary, I’m on alert because, to me, it implies “…and I’m just waiting for an excuse to be offended!”.

So, I’d be very wary around this person. I’d probably use their name only but if they kept bringing up their enby-ness, I’d probably ask them what that meant - and just wait for them to tie themselves up in knots trying to explain it’s not about stereotypes while it indeed is about stereotypes. Then I’d do a kind, general statement about everyone being treated the same regardless of their sex or how many stereotypes they fulfilled or didn’t fulfil.

@Everlil Not at all - it's fostering a good team working environment to be absolutely clear what the legal position is so that my team aren't left feeling uncomfortable if this is asked of them in a team meeting. I made it very clear in my earlier posts that this is based on a suspicion, and if it doesn't happen then great - but if it does then I don't want to be on the back foot.

Can you provide more info on the legal position?

I think others have said, correctly, that as far as the law is concerned non-binary is not a 'thing', and definitely not a protected characteristic.

Harassment under the EA2010 is unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic ... that violates [someone's] dignity, or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them.

If they are settled as "non-binary" instead of "in transition from one sex to the other" they will not be able to uphold a employment tribunal complaint that your choice of pronouns they don't want is related to their GR status - they don't have such a status - or your perception of them as having GR status - you don't perceive them as having such a status.

On the other hand your employer may still feel it's a workplace issue, that not using someone's chosen "they/them" pronouns puts you on the wrong side of a workplace policy, and that you are in the wrong. You are still then potentially on the hook to make a legal challenge to disciplinary action against you by your employer and would have to demonstrate their policy was unlawful. Kind of parallel to Sandie Peggie.

I would consult a solicitor too - disclaimer - I am not one.

Legally and reputationally as a company you’ll face a discrimination and harassment tribunal if you don’t use her preferred gender pronouns (they/them). Honestly I think it’s bizarre people care so much that they would purposefully incorrectlyy label someone. It hurts literally no one if they want to identify as non binary, and is so easy to do. Don’t be that person.

Legally and reputationally as a company you’ll face a discrimination and harassment tribunal if you don’t use her preferred gender pronouns (they/them).

That may be true, but it's not certain (and I'd say unlikely) you or the company would lose such a tribunal if decided according to the law.

The question is, is it worthwhile finding out who would win?

Well quite. I think - from my limited understanding - the situation is that this is a request she can make and we will use them if we want to but that we are not compelled to in law. Instead, we could use 'you' when talking to her, and her name if she's not present. Does that seem correct from a legal pov?

What I don't want to see is a team that's functioned really well for many years being put in a position where they feel uncomfortable or concerned about the ramifications if they don't go along with this request - I want everyone to feel their beliefs and rights are upheld, so need to know where everyone stands legally.

It seems a weird old hill to die on. If this was a male NB wanting to use the ladies because he felt safer, that would be a different matter, but it isn’t. We’re talking about the pronouns that would be used, almost exclusively, when they’re not present. Seems like, at this stage at least, a largely non-issue.

It's not a non-issue - it's putting pressure on people to conform to and declare alliance with an ideology that they might not believe in, and I won't do that to my team. I don't ask them to show support for any other belief system.

I just don’t understand all this handwringing and ‘legal position’ for something this innocuous. They haven’t even started yet, you don’t know this will even be a thing.

If I didn’t believe in women changing their name upon marriage and someone was transferring to my team who had just got married and changed her name, I’d be a bit of a dick to keep using her maiden name when she didn’t want me to. Technically it probably wouldn’t be unlawful, but it would be a bit churlish of me when I could just use her first name and avoid all the drama.

I feel for this person. What a great start to a new job they have!
I hope for their sake they are not non-binary.
Surely if they do their job well no one should give a damn about their pronoun's?

“who I think may want others to use they/them”

That’s what you said. They may. They may not. They may be happy if people try, if they want to, but not overly bothered if, in their eyes, they get it ‘wrong’. So as I said at this stage it seems largely a none issue.

Maybe some of your team aren’t bothered about it, but your “I’m not having it” attitude makes them unable to say anything. Maybe not. Who knows?

With a bit of research, I see that what I said earlier may not be correct. The only case I can find isTaylor v Jaguar Land Rover, an ET decision from 2020 in which a non-binary identity was said to engage the protected characteristic of GR.

You can read the decision here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5fc8d559d3bf7f7f5c134ad3/MsRTaylorvJaguarLandRoverLimited-1304471.2018-Reasons.pdf

Judgment here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5f68b2ebe90e077f5ac3bb5a/Ms_R_Taylor_V_Jaguar_Land_Rover_Ltd_-1304471_2018-_judgment.pdf

"The claimant has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment."

It really isn’t. For one it’s not even happened yet. If they were a woman and made everyone say ‘he’ then I could see why some people wouldn’t want to. Using ‘they’ is completely fine and has happened for centuries (even Shakespeare used the term when describing someone of a known sex).

There is no need to say ‘he/she/they’ when that person is right in front of you. It really is a non-issue.

From what I’m aware (although again not a lawyer), I don’t think there’s been a case in the UK that tested the legal position of “compelled speech” re pronouns yet. I’d be very happy to be corrected on this if I’m wrong.

With this is mind, I think your best bet would be to quietly and kindly rebuff efforts to introduce it into email signatures and go with using a first name instead of they/them if necessary. Hopefully your new colleague will be understanding and willing to compromise and you’ll be able to meet each other halfway.

Precisely - there is no need to say he/she/they when she's in front of us. Which begs the question - why would anyone tell others have they should refer to them in their absence? It's absolutely none of their business - unless they're being derogatory or offensive.

I did say in my OP though that this thread wasn't about the arguments for and against pronouns (which has been done to death on MN), but rather the legal position. Are you able to clarify that please?

I'd be careful about saying anything in advance at the company - will raise the question of you possibly being biased against the new starter. Good to think about it in advance, but only act if and when it becomes an issue.

Make sure you know what your company policy is. You say you have a standard team signature - but that sounds personal, and you should check how that fits in with any company policy that might be lurking somewhere. Employment tribunals (worst case scenario) look in detail at what the company policy is, and individuals have some protection if they are following it regardless of whether it is 'good' or not, and conversely can get hung out to dry if they don't.

Summary: The legal position is unclear. One first-level (Taylor vs. Jaguar Landrover) ET found that a NB identifying person had the PC of GR. That was before Castellucci, the high court case where it was held that the GRA did not recognize non-binary as an identity. Does the use of biologically correct pronouns about a NB person reasonably violate their dignity or make a workplace a hostile intimidating (et. cetera) environment? Unclear.