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 .

The law does not recognise a non binary gender because the law states that there are two sexes, male and female. You cannot be neither sex.

The clash of beliefs has never been tested in court. Most court rulings are based on interpretation of existing law.

Thanks - I had a feeling that might be the case! Hopefully I won't have to deal with it as I don't want anyone in the team to feel uncomfortable at having to do anything that doesn't align with their beliefs. I'll navigate it with her if it does come about as it doesn't look like there's a legal precedent for me to refer to.

You might want to look Mackereth vs. DWP, also. Mackereth resigned his post after refusing to use clients' preferred pronouns while working at the DWP. The case went the EAT which said The actions the DWP was taking were held to be lawful. If I understand the final outcome correctly the EAT said that his Christian beliefs were themselves a protected characteristic and the ET was correct in conducting a balancing exercise to decide whether a policy that said a client's preferred pronouns should be used was a proportionate means to a legitimate aim which justified any indirect discrimination against him; in this case the DWP hadn't actually taken any action to punish Mackereth but was seeking to understand and accomodate his position.

Thanks - will take a look at that.

Why are you creating an issue where there isn't one yet? I'd hate to be the employee joining your team.

No one can be forced to refer to anyone else in any specific way. You won't be the first person to refuse to use this new employee's chosen pronouns and you won't be the last, unless they've lived an extraordinarily sheltered life thus far - it won't make any kind of point; at best you'll get an eye roll and a "here we go" reaction from them.

In both of those situations I’d be using their name, or just reply ‘yes’ or ‘no’.

Why can’t they tell others what pronouns they prefer? I don’t see what the problem is? It’s a preference, do what you like with it.

Legally, as I have mentioned in previous posts it’s unclear and will depend on a details of a situation that hasn’t happened yet.

Thanks for your opinion. Do you have anything further to add on the current legal position or have other posters that have linked to cases covered that?

There is no law compelling you to use preferred pronouns, however they could claim a number of issues depending on how you behave towards them, bullying, harassment, hostile work environment, constructive dismissal etc so I would tread carefully in how you deal with this. (I brought a successful grievance against a colleague for bullying when they refused to use my preferred name - I go by my middle name and always have and she insisted on calling me my first name).

And the same goes for other team members - I want to ensure that no-one feels uncomfortable or pressured which is why I wanted to understand what the law currently states.

Your post sounds combative because you are dismissing the new staffs needs before they have even got there and you talk about you think team sees it as you do - and your not going about it as a manager should to set an example of inclusion - that’s what workplaces want

and yes if you call her “she” when she asks for “they” you will be in hot water

Yes, what I'm saying is that grievances can be brought against things which aren't covered explicitly by a law. So whilst legally the employee cannot compel colleagues to use preferred pronouns, they could bring grievances against them, and win. This could potentially result in a company policy around use of preferred pronouns, because conversely, there is no law which protects gender critical beliefs and refusal to use pronouns. The law is neither your friend nor your enemy in this situation!

Inclusion means no-one faces exclusion, and that includes staff members whose philosophical beliefs do not align with gender ideology. I won't have anyone in my team feeling excluded, which is why I wanted to know where we stand legally.

If you think that's combative then we will have to agree to disagree.

but you have been speculating (and making it an issue that there is gossip about from the sounds of it) you’re also assuming your staff will be uncomfortable which is projecting you’re own feelings on to them - if you already know them you have been colluding with gossip

in no way should you encourage them not to use new members preferred pronouns

You will have someone in your team feeling excluded if you carry on

Inclusion means people with protected characteristics are included not people who are already in positions of power sociologically

you have taken a “side” and are assuming your team will be uncomfortable whereas it’s you that are uncomfortable

why don’t you just give it a whirl - you might learn something

GC beliefs are protected in law - but from what I've gleaned on here, the use of pronouns are not covered by law. Remember grievances can also be raised by staff who feel their rights philosophical beliefs are not being upheld - which, as I've said, is why I want to make sure everyone is aware of their rights and no-one feels excluded. There will be a compromise that will suit everyone - staff could use avoid they/them and use her name for example, which seems reasonable.

And as you'll no doubt be aware, philosophical belief is a protected characteristic.

This is a common misconception and wrongly interpreted all the time

gender critical beliefs are in no way protected by law - huge misconception

you will need to adhere to what person wants - it’s not up to you and your team to decide what you will and won’t do

if you don’t it’s harassment - as shown above

You will have to instruct anyone in your team with a problem to completely avoid using pronouns. Ludicrous but legally acceptable.

Refusing to make a very minor alteration to a group signature sounds very petty but all comes down to what. i refuse to but pronouns on my personal work email signature as it’s obvious im female.

Yes, this seems like the best solution I think. I'm sure this will be acceptable on both sides, should the issue arise.

”Jane told me to set up the meeting. I asked Jane who to invite and Jane told me to invite the whole team, Jane added that Jane wants to do the introduction and Jane also suggested that Jane could field the questions at the end. I don’t think Jane has done this before so it’s good to see Jane stepping up to the plate.”

”Did Jane particularly ask if she could take questions just on Jane’s own?”

“Yes that’s exactly what Jane said. I was surprised Jane wanted to but Jane was completely sure! I think we can trust Jane to do the job.”

Why do you believe that GC beliefs are not protected by law? They are a protected characteristic for the purposes of the Equality Act

It sounds almost as weird as using plural pronouns when it should be singular but no one can take offence.

He wasn’t “non binary” he was a bog standard TIM. That’s why he called himself Rose and used she/her. “Non binary” gender identity in terms of people who don’t think they have a “gender” was never intended to be included within “gender reassignment”. There have been many threads here discussing this case in detail.