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 .

philosophical beliefs are only protected when they are not harming others - that part is really clear

It isn't clear. Protected characteristics are always protected. That they are not a defence against harassment doesn't mean they are only protected whilst not causing harm to others.

I find these threads fascinating. I work with a lot of Countesses, Ladies, Baronnesses and other titled gentry. There is not a world where I would call any of them she or her, it’d be a true faux pas along the lines of “who’s she, the cat’s mother”. It’s incredibly easily to drop out any use of pronouns if you are trying to be polite, so this seems to be the most obvious way forward. It can’t be illegal to avoid using a word, it’s not like you’d be using a non preferred word.

this absolutely. As a child I would have been firmly corrected for using someone's pronoun in their presence. and yes I would have been corrected with the phrase "who is "she"? The cats grandmother?"

Thanks everyone - some really good advice and some interesting opinions.

If the p word arises (and if it doesn't, grand), I will say something along the lines of that she or I can put forward her request but that there may be people in the team who may feel uncomfortable with it, and suggest that using her first name in her absence or 'you/your/you're' would seem a reasonable compromise. Does that sound OK from a legal pov all round?

“This is Jane, she’s starting on Monday.”
”Lovely to meet you, Jane”
”Um, I use they/them pronouns.”
”My apologies, Jane. Lovely to meet you both.”

🤷‍♀️

why just why would you do this?

Jane has said she wishes to be referred to in the plural.

“This is Jane, she’s starting on Monday.”
”Lovely to meet you, Jane”
”And you”

Or

“This is Jane, she’s starting on Monday.”
”Lovely to meet you, Jane”
”Um, I use they/them pronouns.”
”OK.”

If "jane" is not there, she will not know what pronoun is used. I am not sure that using "you" as a third person pronoun will work. As has been said its very easy to avoid using a pronoun about someone in their presence, in fact it used to be considered rude to do so. Not sure why "you" is any dfferent from "they" Its also open to stupid misunderstanding
"Has anyone seen Jane?"
"Yes you've just popped to the loo"

Honestly why would anyone want to be so arsey?

The they/them statement is specific, a request to be acknowledged as more than just a she or her.

More than one.

Plural.

”This is Jane, they are starting on Monday,” doesn’t make sense.

”These are Janes, they are starting on Monday,” does.

Well, it doesn’t really, but you have to go along with people’s pronoun delusions now, no matter how barking mad or outright lying they are.

Only kind to join in. Don’t be half-hearted, go for it 100%. Plural all the way!

Again, in the real world, you’d be hard pressed to find anyone who heard ”This is Jane, they are starting on Monday,” and thought “Oh my god. What could this mean? There must be multiple Janes”.

Nobody needs to compelle other people's speach or force them to participate in an act of religious observance.
This member of staff may want to do so or she may not however the fact that its already known how she identifies means she likely will.
A good manager looks for potential problems and finds work around or if not possible kicks the can to hr or senior management, they don't just wait until they're neck deep in shit and then try and figure out what to do

I don't remember the threads but the tribunal said at 178:

We thought it was very clear that Parliament intended gender reassignment to be a spectrum moving away from birth sex, and that a person could be at any point on that spectrum. That would be so, whether they described themselves as “non-binary” i.e. not at point A or point Z, “gender fluid” i.e. at different places between point A and point Z at different times, or “transitioning” i.e. moving from point A, but not necessarily ending at point Z, where A and Z are biological sex. We concluded that it was beyond any doubt that somebody in the situation of the Claimant was (and is) protected by the legislation because they are on that spectrum and they are on a journey which will not be the same in any two cases. It will end up where it does. The wording of section 7(1) accommodates that interpretation without any violence to the statutory language Consequently, there is jurisdiction to hear the gender reassignment claim.

It was only a first-level ET so not a precedent, but that seems pretty clear to me that the Judge wasn't very concerned about the details and confident that someone who doesn't identify as their biological sex is protected under the PC of GR, regardless.

Just reread my post and I agree it wasn't clear - you etc in her presence, which is normal speech. So, her name in her absence or in conversation if she's present, or the usual you etc in her presence which is just normal speech. Or something else (I'm open to her thoughts) that recognises that people may not feel comfortable using they/them but also wanting to avoid her feeling uncomfortable. Ultimately operating within the law for all.

Surely you'd just say "sorry no I haven't seen them" rather than repeating "the receptionist"? If the question was "have you seen Lisa?" you wouldn't reply, "sorry I haven't seen Lisa" would you? You'd say "sorry I haven't seen her".

When presenting one person to another but using a plural form for the introduction:

• There are multiple Janes, this is one of them
• There is one Jane who believes she is more than one person
• The introducer needs a grammar lesson

Actually gender critical beliefs are protected under the characteristic of religion and belief. Also being forced to participate in someone else's religion is against your human rights(article 9) and so is someone attempting to compelle someone else's speach(article10).
Any policies that demand you comply with compelled speach would be illegal discrimination on multiple grounds.
What an employer can ask is that you refrain from using any pronouns and use the person's name only

It hurts literally no one if they want to identify as non binary, and is so easy to do. Don’t be that person

Totally wrong! Demanding special pronouns means people walk on eggshells around you, having to check themselves every time they speak. More than that, it carries an implication of “I’m special and not like other girls/women’, and it makes people subscribe to a regressive belief about ‘boy things’ and ‘girl things’ - stupid gender stereotypes I thought we’d ditched decades ago.

It also implies that everybody else - the non non-binaries, if you will - fulfil all the stereotypes associated with their sex.

Have just seen this from ACAS:

As an employer, you cannot force an employee to use someone's new pronouns. However, you can expect them not to use the old pronouns.

https://www.acas.org.uk/gender-reassignment-discrimination/preventing-discrimination

But they have added a note saying that since the Supreme Court ruling they may have to change their advice!

I'm curious: His/Her Majesty, His/Her Highness, His/Her Grace, his Lorsdhip/her Ladyship - these are the polite ways to refer to titled people in the third person. All gendered. I don't see how this helps avoid gendering someone.

Inclusions doesn't mean the Included person gets to enforce their religious beliefs on anyone else or demand that others participate in said religion. Its about reasonable adjustments which in this case would mean using no pronouns.
This may upset the nb or trans person but thats tough luck because other people have rights too

Secret option 4 - “”

Literally what most people would think.

People use and hear they/them/their used in the singular every day. They manage not to spend hours looking for all the ‘others’ being referred to.