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 .

Would you say the same to a vegan person about just eating the ham sandwich because a meat eater asked them too?
I ask because its the same thing

We should have stuck with "thou art".

😄😄😄😄😄😄

Yes, she can use whatever language she likes to describe herself, but that doesn’t mean she can coerce others to say things that they do not believe. You have pointed out in another post that an employer can have a Christian ethos, and require employees to support that Christian ethos. The employer cannot, however, require non-Christian employees to recite the Catechism, or say any other things that they do not believe.

I don't think it's quite that simple. Castellucci focused on the GRA and whether a NB identifying person had a right to a GRC sex other than male or female - they didn't. It didn't touch on matters under the EA2010.

I don't think non-binary is mentioned anywhere in GLP or FWS. FWS reiterates the definition of GR from the EA2010, but doesn't comment much further, that I can see.

And while I agree that the definition of GR doesn't appear to allow for people claiming to be NB to use the umbrella of GR as a PC but it was allowed by the first level ET in Taylor v Jaguar Landrover - and that was not appealed, so it is the only directly relevant case law we have.

You may be right that if Taylor was heard now it would be decided differently - but it doesn't seem entirely obvious to me.

And at the point at which she tries to coerce others, that can be addressed. However there are posters on here that are suggesting she can’t even make the request or if she does they have to counter it by ridiculously introducing her as multiple people. The position currently is she “may” ask. It’s starting to look like preemptive offence taking.

Haech Lockwood?

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/non-binary-trans-protections-gender-reassignment-lockwood-v-cheshire-and-wirral-nhs-foundation-trust/

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6926ec33a245b0985f0340aa/Haech_Lockwood_v_Cheshire_and_Wirral_NHS_Foundation_Trust_and_others_2401211_2024___2407178_2024.pdf

So you’d rather make her uncomfortable to prove a point, than show her a tiny bit of courtesy by respecting her wishes. Well, don’t worry, if you freeze her out enough she’ll probably leave and you can all carry on as you were.

Yes, that will do it:

104. Although the claimant has taken steps to change attributes of their sex from female, by changing their name to a name which can be identified as of either sex, and has changed their preferred pronouns, those are not in our view attributes which are for the purpose of moving from one sex to the other, they are steps in the process of moving away from the female sex to a different gender identity, ie that of non binary. The claimant is not proposing, nor do they intend to take any steps to reassign their sex from that of female to male. 105. We therefore find that the claimant does not have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

Although still a first level ET, it finds opposite to Taylor. The Judge did say specifically "there is no direct authority from higher courts upon [this] legal point." So I guess it's one-all at half time. I wonder what the EAT would say.

Thanks @tropicaltrance that's v interesting (as well as exhausting!).

I’ve never used any of those. I just use their titled name eg “If we look at Lady Danby’s properties”, “Dowager Bridgerton mentioned earlier that she wanted to spend more time in Spain”.

We’re on close enough relationships that I wouldn’t use such grand “your grace” type addresses, but definitely wouldn’t be referring to them as Jane or she.

But I could as easily substitute in Jane or Susan if I wanted to avoid pronouns, and restructure a few sentences to avoid repeating their name. It’s easily done. I’ve never actually been told to avoid using pronouns for them, but I am cringing thinking about it, so it’s more I avoid the need to instead of making a faux pas.

I’m pretty gender critical, but I also believe in being basically decent and showing respect in most cases. I don’t eat meat but I don’t lecture people who do, because it’s their choice and has little impact on me. Jane may be biologically female but might prefer to go by non-binary pronouns. Why not accommodate that? How hard is it to change an email signature FFS?

Jane has stated that she requires other people to use they/them pronouns when talking about her. Jane wouldn’t insist on they/them pronouns if she accepted that she’s a singular female being.

This means one of:

• Jane believes she’s really, genuinely neither male nor female.
• Jane knows she’s female, but she doesn’t believe she’s only one person.

Neither are true, but either could be her belief.

If you insist on saying that Jane is female then her insistence on plural pronouns must be because she believes she’s more than one person.

If you insist on believing that Jane is one person and you believe her to be female despite using her chosen they/them pronouns (and you’ve clearly stated you do) when Jane believes herself to be non-binary, then by the rules of trans rights you’re simply a transphobic bigot.

Jane has stated that she requires other people to use they/them pronouns when talking about her. Jane wouldn’t insist on they/them pronouns if she accepted that she’s a singular female being.

This means one of:

• Jane believes she’s really, genuinely neither male nor female.
• Jane knows she’s female, but she doesn’t believe she’s only one person.

Neither are true, but either could be her belief.

If you insist on saying that Jane is female then her insistence on plural pronouns must be because she believes she’s more than one person.

If you insist on believing that Jane is one person and you believe her to be female despite using her chosen they/them pronouns (and you’ve clearly stated you do) when Jane believes herself to be non-binary, then by the rules of trans rights you’re simply a transphobic bigot.

This. It’s just common decency! OP you can think Jane is batshit all you want privately and as long as Jane doesn’t infringe Jane’s mindset on others or have a chip on Jane’s shoulder about it, then it can all remain respectful and a non-issue. You seem combative to
be honest.
Is it your own business, as in, do you own the company? Or do you just work there? If it’s the latter I’d really not choose this as your hill to die on.

Respect for other people's beliefs go both ways @KimTheresPeopleThatAreDying and protected characteristics are equal - as manager I won't compel anyone to do anything they feel uncomfortable with re their beliefs. As I've said in my pp I will work with the new start to reach a compromise if the need arises that protects everyone from a legal pov. My OP made it clear that I'm not looking to rehash the old should you/shouldn't you arguments, but to clarify the law around this so that I'm clear from the outset (if it's needed).

What if Jane decides Jane is a dog 🐶?

By demanding other people abandon the rules of grammar and adhere to Jane’s chosen pronouns, Jane IS imposing her mindset on other people against their will.

No the judge did mention the jaguar land rover case and said it had been superseded (I cant remember the exact wording) in the high crt ruling against the glp.
That said its really moot as nb isn't recognised in UK law anyway

What makes you think this will be necessary? Has she asked? I assume not. Has she stated she's non binary? Not all use they/ them pronouns. Or is she just not preforming femininity well enough for you?

I think at this point it's been fairly well proven there is nothing more substantial behind this than a lot of emotive coercing.

There has been case law on this. I'd look up the Lister case, an employee refused to use They/Them pronouns and was lawfully sacked over it.

Was that the teacher case? If so, it wasn't simply a case of not using preferred she/he pronouns - there was far more to it, and I have no intention of replicating the teacher's approach.

But who cares?! They’re just words. I’d hate for anyone who worked for me or alongside me in my team to feel uncomfortable, and as per my previous message earlier I am actually gender critical and think it’s a load of nonsense. That said, I can’t get that worked up about the grammar. If you imagine or pretend you don’t actually know Jane’s actual biological sex then in that instance they / them works fine. What is in Jane’s underwear has no impact on how Jane is going to do their actual job and therefore is no one’s business and not relevant in a business setting.

no. No it is not and you know it.