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 .

dog is not a pronoun.

As long as you tell whoever is uncomfortable with using the word ‘they’ that are making the person who wants to be referred to as ‘they’ uncomfortable then that’s fine. That way you can’t be accused of taking sides or prioritising one person’s uncomfortableness over another’s.

Personally I would stay completely out of it, unless someone specifically comes up to you to tell you another person’s language is making them uncomfortable.

His case failed not because he refused to use chosen pronouns but because he was an abusive twat in the way he refused ie calling her it, and the fact that he wouldn't use the child's chosen name either. That case also involved a girl who identified as a boy not a nb.
So no compelled pronoun use isn't legally mandated

Or Jane knows they are female but prefers to use they/them pronouns because she doesn’t ’identify as female’. I may inwardly roll my eyes at that. I may avoid any pronouns because I think this is bollocks. I may use they/them pronouns if I remember. I don’t really care if the ‘rules of trans rights’ label me a transphobic bigot. HTH.

I think most people would just say ‘no’. As in, ‘have you seen Lisa’?, ‘No’.

Yes it is as both invole doing something that goes against another person's philosophical belief

No, what I will do (if indeed it arises) is to chat this through with the new start and agree a compromise that will take account of all protected characteristics. It can be very difficult to declare a 'side' here, possibly more so if you have GC views and don't know how that will be perceived by your manager, and so I will acknowledge and show equal respect for all views from a legal pov (repeating the last 3 words for emphasis).

The EJ Benson in Lockwood said that he wasn't applying Taylor because the process of reassignment at the core of GR has to be both from one sex and to another, and then went on to say "We have carefully considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in For Women Scotland and believe that there is nothing in the judgment which suggests that our view is incorrect." (I think you're thinking of FWS, as GLP had not yet been heard.)

Reading carefully what the Judge was saying is that he was making his own decision as to the interpretation of the law, and pointing out that this was in any event not contrary to FWS. He was not saying that he found FWS a precedent on this question that had to be followed or that FWS answered the question at issue.

Thanks my mistake

I think that could be construed as singling them out. You’re making that person compromise when you don’t even know if it will be necessary. You’re not showing equal respect as you’re not doing the same to the others (asking them to compromise by using a perfectly adequate word in order to make a new starter more comfortable). I think you’re making an issue out of something that hasn’t and hopefully will never happen.

Just let the new starter introduce themself how they want and if anyone has an issue they can come to you later and discuss it and talk to both parties about reaching a compromise. You could involve HR in order to cover your back and everyone else’s in that circumstance.

I wonder what other groups are subjected to this preemptive worrying. Devoutly religious people? Active trade unionists? Women with young children?

I highly doubt this person exists and if they do, I'm pretty sure she uses she/her pronouns. If non binary pronouns were important, they'd likely have come up in the interview process. I think you're making assumptions based on appearances.

I can see that pointedly and repeatedly using non-preferred pronouns to a person's face might be problematic.

But how can it be "harassment" on occasions when they aren't even there? In that case, the person making trouble in the workplace is whoever takes it upon themself to carry tales.

No, I won't do that - no-one will be required to declare their beliefs by raising concerns about this to me. We will have to agree to differ on the approaches each of us would take.

However, if you have any legal advice that adds to the pp's that have linked to case law please do post them.

Isn't the point that the protected characteristic of gender reassignment under the Equality Act must presumably refer to reassignment under the GRA, and as the GRA only refers to people "of either gender" (ie either male or female) then non-binary cannot fall within the protected characteristic of gender reassigment?

But what if the new starter feels uncomfortable raising any concerns to you, especially as you’ve brought up that they’re preferred method of address might make people uncomfortable when you don’t have any evidence that this is the case? You could be seen as an instigator (projecting your beliefs when it hasn’t come up as an issue for anyone) rather than a caring manager?

As per my previous post, we will have to agree to disagree.

Any additional case law to add? I'd be really interested in seeing anything you could link to.

Gowers' The Complete Plain Words quotes Thackeray as disagreeing too.

Gowers seems to be of the opinion that the use of they for he or she "is common in speech, and not unknown in serious writing", but he does advise the official writer to avoid it while not condemning it in everyday use.

It's completely irrelevant when the sex of the person being discussed is KNOWN. in those cases it is correct (and natural) to use the sexed pronoun. Most people do this without thinking and expecting them (unknown person of potentially either sex) to stop and think every time a certain person is referred to is putting an undue burden on them.
It's not fair and it's a ridiculous expectation. It is NOT a normal way of speaking at all as I'm certain you know perfectly well.

No but the Judge saying this indicates that it is open to interpretation not set in law.

ie different judge different out come.

I suspect that until there is a High Court or Supreme Court ruling it will not be final.

But that's why I posted the link to the ACAS guidelines on they / them etc.. Because they have added to it that since the Supreme Court ruling they need to ammend it.

So the only ruling saying an employee "should" wasn't about that but as said up thread being boorish or worse.

I’d hate for anyone who worked for me or alongside me in my team to feel uncomfortable

Would that apply to me?
I feel very uncomfortable around trans/non-binary language, having been subject to vile abuse a few years ago for not knowing what a trans woman is by a bloke who said he was one.
I end up feeling ill and shaking if I have to use trans language because in my experience trans people aren’t afraid to hurt others.

So would you stand up for me, prevent me feeling uncomfortable, and tell the non-binary person that I cannot refer to her as they/them and that she should agree to being referred to by correct pronouns?

Somehow I think not.
My hurt isn’t fashionable enough for you.

I was just trying to offer some constructive advice. Each case will be different and case law won’t automatically help you. If the person in question happens to experience a culture of micro aggressions when working for the company (and these don’t have to be related to not using pronouns), a body of evidence will be compiled. I’m not saying this will happen and I’m sure it won’t, but if their manager has spoken to them before they’ve even started work and met the team, telling them their coworkers might be affronted by using a perfectly acceptable word without any evidence this is the case, then I don’t think it would cover you in glory. As a manager, it could be argued that the team follow you and the culture you’re setting. If none of your colleagues have even brought this up as a problem, then why are you instigating one?

I say this, as I’ve worked for a company that does have a code of conduct of making people feel safe at work and free of harassment. I have witnessed something similar to this and it was dealt with according to company policies.

The argument is being made throughout this thread that ‘they’ is never used in the singular and/or if it is it must be used with a singular form of the verb and/or when it’s used not one person can understand it only refers to one person. These are clearly nonsense arguments.

I swear a lot. I’ve worked with people I know hate swearing. In those circumstances I think before I speak. Is that an undue burden? Is it an undue burden to not write “as per your previous fucking email” in work correspondence.?

The judge was wrong then. And this has since been clarified. Non Binary is NOT a protected characteristic and does not fall under Gender Reassignment. A tribunal now would be compelled to come to a different decision.

Or

“This is Jane, she’s starting on Monday.”
”Lovely to meet you, Jane”
”Um, I use they/them pronouns."
"So you want to be referred to in the third person in your presence?"
"Um...er... no, not really"
"So what's the point then?"

[This conjures up images of John Cleese in the "I want to be known as Loretta" sketch]