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 .

That's nonsense

people who are already in positions of power sociologically

Punching up is ok, neh?

It really is difficult actually. It means rephrasing sentences that would come naturally to you. In writing this is simply extra effort and time, but in speech it is very difficult to avoid pronouns.

Of course you need to avoid using correct-sex pronouns not just in the person's presence, but when they aren't even there, as otherwise you risk a manager, an HR person or just some random enby-ally dobbing you in for using the wrong pronouns. And if you use the wrong-sex pronouns it is, for many of us including me, a head-fuck.

It also says about toilets:

Everyone at work should be able to use facilities they feel comfortable with. Making a transgender employee use facilities they're not comfortable with could be discrimination.

So might need some updating throughout.

Again wrong the forstater appeal tribunal found that they are covered by the equality act.
You really are making a fool of yourself as even if they weren't lack of belief in gender ideology is protected under both the equality act and the human rights act. Furthermore compelled speach and forced religious observance are prohibited under the human rights act.
So no nobody has to use preferred pronouns

I had this for someone who had left my workplace permanently - enby ally correction when the person wasn't even on the same land mass as me

Remember we’re talking about a situation where Jane has specified her wish to be referred to in the plural.

If the name or sex of the individual is unknown then it is perfectly acceptable to use the plural form. For a single individual whose name and sex is known, referring to them in the plural is peculiar. Introducing that person in the plural to another who may not be aware of Jane’s delusion about not being female, just makes it sound as though you can’t construct a sentence properly.

And if Jane was overweight I’d consider it downright rude of you.

Not sure why it’s so hard for you/your team to respect this person’s wishes (if, indeed, those are their wishes - see, wasn’t so hard to say their, was it?).

“If the name or sex of the individual is unknown then it is perfectly acceptable to use the plural form.”

Why? If the claim is using the plural form for an individual is bad grammar or confusing or difficult or whatever, why is it suddenly ok to use the plural form for an individual in the circumstances you outline? How is it suddenly ok to combine plural verb forms with a pronoun referring to just one person?

Respect, tolerance and understanding works both ways - one protected characteristic doesn't trump another.

Yes the woman in question can believe that she doesn't have a sex but she cant compelle others to agree with her or demand they use her chosen pronouns that would be bullying and harassment along with direct beliefs discrimination and a breach of the other person's article 9&10 human rights. She will just have to get used to her name being used in lue of her chosen pronouns.

Yes, there needs to be a comfortable middle ground which respects everyone.

For example, my right to believe in Christianity, talk about the church activities I've been to or am going to is protected but it doesn't mean I can go around telling my coworkers they are going hell, regardless of whether the reasons I assert are covered in law or not!

Or alternatively, she can be fully aware that she has a sex but doesn't feel aligned to gender expression of that sex and chooses to use language about herself which reflects that. We don't know. And ultimately it doesn't matter, as long as she does her job and allows others to do theirs in a working environment conducive to all.

I feel like I missed a trick by saying “thanks” to the devout Christian who said her church would pray for my sick son, rather than “you know religion is the mark of a feeble mind, right?”

Well quite. I know that some Christians truly believe that their God is the only true God, but I think (although I could be mistaken) that any workplace that required staff to align their beliefs with that would be operating outside of the law.

Because it's lunacy?

Why would anyone be uncomfortable with saying they / them? This person presumably isn’t asking anyone else to add their pronouns to their email signature which obviously would be unreasonable. Not sure what the discomfort would be? Just use their name as others have said. “Where’s Jane?” “Ah Jane nipped to the loo” it’s not hard is it.
why can’t they just add their pronouns to their email signature if they’re that arsed? (Note I'm using they and they’re here as I have no clue of their biological sex - and it doesn’t sound odd)

eg

Kind regards,
Prawn (they/them)

Accidental Prawn
Opinionated Manager
Corporate Firm
020-7666-666

It’s the way our language works. We refer to a single garment (trousers or tights) in the plural, even calling them ‘a pair’. To say ‘a trouser’ or ‘a tight’ sounds wrong (and is wrong!), it jars and goes against the expected flow of speech.

The reverse is true about referring to the single woman standing in front of you as a 1+.

I can see she’s one person.

You can see she’s one person.

Yet you say one person apparently has the power to compel two people to abandon the usual conventions of grammar.

Jane can believe she’s as many people as she wants, she can believe she’s isn’t female, she can even believe she’s the granddaughter of Queen Victoria.

It is her belief - not mine, not yours.

Beliefs don’t need any grounding in reality to be real to the person who believes them.

But that doesn’t mean everyone else needs to start believing them too.

I believe Jane is one person. Singular. Female.

And expecting me to play along and abandon my belief for the supremacy of Jane’s belief is completely unacceptable.

You are mistaken - if the role requires it (e.g. working for a church organisation or Christian charity) it is permissable under law to say employees have to believe/ be active followers of the religion. It's an exemption under the equalities act, similar to someone employing a personal assistant being able to specify sex etc. Though you'd think if you were applying for a role closely linked to a religion that you might be vaguely supportive of it. I know teachers that won't work at a faith school because they don't agree with it, which is perfectly fine.

A company where let's say the founder/ CEO or whatever has a particular religion cannot however insist the employees also follow that religion if the business of the company is not directly related to the religion. And then there's a grey area of things like Christian bookshops, where you can set out the ethos of the company and tell staff they have to abide by the ethos but not necessarily have to believe. Similar to a company that has any sort of policy, you gave to abide by it, even if privately you disagree.

Being married or civilly partnered is a protected characteristic. Refusing to use a woman's married name could easily be argued as discriminatory.

Feeling non-binary isn't a protected characteristic.

But most of this is bollocks. You’re fully aware she doesn’t think she’s more than one person. Your decision to refer to her in the plural “these are Janes” is just you choosing to make some kind of point. You know really, just as we all know that Jane is female, that no one would be particularly confused by “This is Jane. They are starting on Monday”. Most people wouldn’t give it a second thought. It’s hard to tell, between you and Jane, who the biggest attention seeker is.

What makes you think she'll want they/ them pronouns?

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

Forstater v CGD made it very clear that they are.

If thats from the jaguar land rover case it was superseded by the sc judgment in the case of the American nb, the fws sc case and most recently specifically in the high crt judgement against the glp. Non binary is not recognised in UK law and as such is not protected under the law.

Shakespeare, Byron, Geoffrey Chaucer, Jane Austen, and the King James Bible would disagree.

Pronoun verb agreement is weak sauce - do you have problems saying "you are" singular?