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 reality is that your feelings don’t trump theirs or vice versa so if you were working with Jane you’d have to find a way to muddle along. So yes, I would support you but I’d also support Jane. It’s not about being fashionable it’s about being professional and respectful all round. Fashionable!! FFS I’ve stated multiple times that I am GC on this thread so don’t come that one.

Harm! Pfffft. I'm a woman, I'm not HARMED if someone calls me "he" either by mistake or even maliciously. I wouldn't even be upset. Its a total non issue because I KNOW who I am. If someone is so fragile in their identity that they perceive so-called misgendering as actual harm, then they are not fit to be let outside alone.

Hmmm…maybe you’re onto something…

The inclusion of pronouns in email signatures seems to be next to the name, similar to the inclusion of Mrs in older, more formal correspondence.

blah blah blah
Yours sincerely,
Jane Smith (Mrs)

In reply you’d address the sender as Mrs Smith or Mrs Jane Smith. Perhaps those including pronouns do want them to be used in direct address.

Dear Jane Jones (they/them),

Thank you for your letter…blah blah blah…

Or

Dear They/Them Jones,

Blah blah blah…

Otherwise, what’s the point? If the sender insists on including pronouns it seems reasonable to conclude they might want to be addressed by them! 😂

I’ve told you I end up with physical symptoms due to past trauma.

You’ve told me I have to ‘muddle through it’.

Right.

Ingesting something is in no way the same as a word choice.

We both know that you’re entirely twisting the meaning of what I said there and misquoting. You don’t know if Jane has physical symptoms of past trauma either! Why are your feelings more important than Jane’s? Surely you both deserve respect and inclusion?

How would you deal with this with Jane if it was your workplace? I would (and this is actually relevant to my workplace, so lived experience) personally avoid calling Jane anything other than Jane, therefore not bypassing my own views and beliefs but also still being respectful towards Jane and Jane’s views and beliefs (whilst also not getting into any HR battles). Ergo. We would muddle through.

Jane may be biologically female but might prefer to go by non-binary pronouns. Why not accommodate that?

Because it’s demanding that people actively go against their instincts - they know Jane is female - and remember to use Jane’s “preferred pronouns”. The demand that people use additional headspace to accommodate her whims, not to mention the fear of being hauled over the coals for getting it wrong.

If Jane wants to be “they/them” then she can refer to herself like that. If other people want to, that’s up to them but she needs not to make demands. She’s not the centre of everyone else’s universe.

I would … personally avoid calling Jane anything other than Jane,

That would be a micro-aggression. You would be deliberately avoiding the use of any pronoun for Jane. Presumably you’d still be using pronouns for your other colleagues, so Jane would be singled out by being the only one consistently referred to by her name only.

Unless you abandoned the use of pronouns for all of your colleagues, you’d soon find yourself having to answer to your boss or HR for your actions. And if you’re the boss you may find it an expensive choice.

This isn’t an equally weighted fight. No matter how helpful, supportive or accommodating you think you are being, unless you fully capitulate to the demands of the be-pronouned, you’ll always lose.

Your only possible course of action is to refuse outright, citing your own protected beliefs. If you try the halfway-house approach by avoiding Jane’s (and only Jane’s) pronouns altogether you dig a deeper hole for yourself.

Wrong both are being asked to compromise as the gc staff are being told that they cannot use correct sexed pronouns for the nb woman and must use her name instead and the nb woman is being told that she cannot force other people to use her chosen pronouns and will have to accept her name being used instead.
You do understand that not adhering to or centering the wants of a trans or nb person is not discrimination and that claiming that only gc people should compromise their beliefs by using language that goes against their beliefs system is direct belief discrimination.
Basically for something to be a compromise both side need to give up something it can't just all come from 1 side which is what you are arguing for.
It really is irrelevant how comfortable the new start is when it comes to pronoun use or lack of us, as long as nobody intentionally and continuously uses correct sexed pronouns for her when asked not to as that would be bullying. Its would also be bullying for this woman to repeatedly demand that her chosen pronouns are used instead of a compromise of her name

I’m not trans or nb, but I hate being called she. I also hate it when someone uses a nickname of my name. I use ‘they’ all the time in sentences and to talk about someone when they’re not there. Using they is perfectly acceptable. I’m not asking someone to call me ‘he’.

Why do you need to bring this up to a person before they’ve started the job when it’s not even been asked or expected though? This person hasn’t asked for this, it’s all projection and I wouldn’t want a new starter to feel uncomfortable by bringing this up when they’re haven’t asked for it and no team member has taken any offence to it? Putting your projections on how a new starter may or not feel sounds ridiculous to me. It wouldn’t be a nice environment to work in. I would hate someone to do that to me when I haven’t asked for it and they don’t even know me.

They both go against someone's deeply held philosophical beliefs and are equally detrimental eating a harmless meat sandwich against your wishes is no different from using compelled language against your wishes.
But if you prefer a different analogy how about demanding that a Muslim recite the lord's prayer because thats what the Christian wishes.

There is absolutely no way I would be citing my own GC beliefs in this scenario. Calling someone by their name is not a micro aggression. It’s a middle ground that works for everyone.
I do see what you are getting at, I have a similar situation at work at the moment (luckily I’m not this persons line manager), but I do respect this persons beliefs enough to let them live their life as they wish. Even if I don’t agree with them.

I recognise that we have different views on this and that's fine - but please don't misrepresent me. At no point have I said I will be bringing this up before she starts the job, and I clearly stated in my second post when I would address this. Hope that clears up any misunderstanding.

Again with the micro aggressions bs.
As Jane is the only person who is demanding that nobody acknowledges her sex Jane has singled herself out, referring to her by name and avoiding all pronouns for her is a reasonable compromise that she has to accept because of her choices, if that means she's the only person not referred to by correctly sexed pronouns thats her choice and not any form of aggression its mearly adhering to her request.
If Jane complains to her boss or hr then Jane would be bullying and harassing her coworkers and could face belief discrimination claims especially if she's keeping a record of who calls her by her name vs those who use her chosen pronouns.
Any employer who reprimands a member of staff for using Jane's name as a compromise is going to find themselves on the loosing end of an employment tribunal.

I don't think that holds up. The EA2010 has its own definition of GR which is not connected or linked to the requirements under the GRA to receive a GRC.

The EA2010 definition of GR hinges around undergoing or proposing to undergo a process to reassign the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

There's nothing that requires consideration of the GRA to interpret that. It's certainly not required to get or contemplate getting a GRC under the GRA to be covered by GR protections.

Would you be happy to be told that you can never refer to a particular person as they even when that person isn't there, that you must always use correctly sexed pronouns for that person and that of you dont you'd be fired?
I ask this because its the exact opposite of what you are demanding that gc people must do. The fact that you choose to mangle the English language because of your aversion to sexed pronouns is a personal choice and shouldn't be foisted on others just as my choice to use correct sexed pronouns shouldn't be foisted on you.

But if gender reassignment in the EA refers to reassignment of a person's sex, doesn't that completely rule out the inclusion of non-binary?

Does UK law recognise a third sex in addition to male and female?

(Perhaps I'm mistaken but I thought so called hermaphrodites and intersex cases were all still either male or female, but suffering from some sort DSD?)

@Everlil - " I’m not trans or nb, but I hate being called she. I also hate it when someone uses a nickname of my name. I use ‘they’ all the time in sentences and to talk about someone when they’re not there. Using they is perfectly acceptable..."

I'm sorry but I don't understand.

Why would you hate being referred to as "she" if you aren't present and people are legitimately talking about you in your absence? How would you even know?

But if you mean that people refer to you as "she" even in your presence, as if you weren't there, then I'd say that is wrong and is just plain rude

I agree that a higher court precedent would provide clarity as to whether Taylor or Lockwood is correct. Obviously I prefer Lockwood, but both were ab initio interpretations of the EA2010 and neither claimed to be following precedent. An appeal to the EAT would be the obvious place it would be settled.

When you say that the Judge was saying it is open to interpretation and not set in law, you might consider that until it is interpreted by a Judge, every statute is just a salad of words; it's Judges like this one whose interpretation sets the law.

The law doesn't recognize a third sex in any way. The wider question for the courts to answer is really this: if a man who claims to be a woman is protected from discrimination on that basis how can it be right to deny that protection to a man who simply claims he is not a man?

Looked at fairly, that's a rather big hole in discrimination law. If there's a way to make the EA2010 cover that gap I wouldn't be surprised if an EAT tried to do so.

Yep, it is rude in my presence and that is the point everyone is making. I’ve said before in my posts if I’m not there then I don’t care what people call me. We are on the same page!!

I’m not demanding anything. What you are saying isn’t anything to do with what the OP has asked, I can’t see where anyone has been asked never to say that ever again especially when that person isn’t there. I have no aversion to sexed pronouns at all. It’s just my way of speaking. I work with people who speak different languages and my first language isn’t English also. I believe in sex not gender. I just don’t believe in creating an issue where there isn’t one. The new employee hasn’t demanded anything, neither have the current employees. Why make such an issue about something that’s pure conjecture in the OP’s mind?

I think the OP is quite sensible to think ahead and try to get hold of some genuine legal clarification.

Gender in the workplace is an area where there is a lot of honest confusion, a lot of out of date documentation that hasn't been revised, and a lot of deliberate misinformation swilling around.

So if a situation does arise, doing a quick Google on the day and trusting the results you come up with, isn't likely to be an adequate response. And if it doesn't arise in this case, the information may be useful in the future.

You may be correct regarding the legal position (I don’t know) but getting to the point where you can be proven to be correct is never going to be easy.

If Jane takes umbrage at being the only person referred to by name and having her chosen pronouns ignored then you have to hope that your boss or HR has the balls to defend you. Too many don’t. Pursuing redress through the courts requires hard work and good luck, plus the hope of someone taking on your claim. If you’re in a low paid job then recovery of loss of earnings at your salary level may not be seen as attractive enough to do so.

If you are the boss you need balls of steel to stand up to the demands and legal threats made by a disgruntled Jane.

Additionally, if Jane decides to go public with her perceived grievance then you need to be ready to stand up to slurs on social media. It could lead to a loss of revenue that may threaten the business, depending on how stable the finances are.

As I said, if you get on the wrong side of Jane’s demands as an employee you could find yourself out of work: ‘managed out’, dismissed or made to feel so uncomfortable you quit. If you’re the boss you could find your company the target of online harassment or malicious reviews.

How many times have we seen famous (and not-so-famous) people and companies issue public apologies and promises to educate themselves? They’re not doing that because it’s on their bucket list, they’re doing that because they’re afraid of the consequences of not doing so.

Taylor was covered under GR anyway as he was basically a part time cross dresser in the process of “reassigning” his sex. Not someone with they/them pronouns who claimed to be neither male nor female.