Isla Bumba.20

[newyearnoeu]

Another example of an 'HR consultant' who apparently doesn't have a clue about the actual law.

Boomer colleagues won’t use a coworker’s ‘they’ pronouns – what should I do?

Everyone has to use 'they' pronouns for NB colleagues and it is BREAKING THE LAW if you don't. She even says " Under the Equality Act 2010, if you deliberately or repeatedly misgender someone, especially after they’ve corrected you multiple times, then this could constitute harassment or discrimination, related to the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment'

Except even I know that being NB has NO legal basis in law and definitely doesn't come under the EA definition of 'gender reassignment.' How could it, if the whole point of being NB is that you don't have 1 set gender to reassign!

I find it terrifying actual professionals are still preaching this completely inaccurate view. Bad enough if she'd just expressed her opinion that colleagues have to respect NB pronouns but to try and scare them into obedience by lying about the law is so deeply unprofessional.

She's not even just a HR professional - she owns her own HR consulting company! What else is she completely misrepresenting to her clients?

This is ‘Stonewall law’, isn’t it? Totally incorrect, but widely believed because transactivists have been tirelessly spreading this propaganda for so many years.

It’s appalling that people claiming to be experts are misrepresenting the law like this.

I'm afraid that you are wrong in your assumption.

Something doesn't have to be covered under the equality act to fall under workplace bullying rules, an example of this would be calling a redhead carrot top would not be discrimination under the equality act but it would be bullying and/or harassment under workplace policies.
Whilst NB is not recognised in law in the UK and nobody needs to use this person's chosen pronouns, repeatedly using pronouns for her that she has asked you not to is bullying and/or harassment. To avoid this you just use the person's name same as you would for a man or woman who wants the wrong sexed pronouns.

The HR consultant was still incorrect to state that doing so was illegal under the equality act. She should have pointed out that deliberately upsetting someone could be considered work place bullying and dealt with under those policies.

did you actually read either the link or my post?

It was the fact that the HR 'expert' specifically said that misgendering them would be a breach of the EA I was so annoyed by. That's not an 'assumption' that's just being able to read. The 'protected characteristic of GR' is a specifically and legally defined term which doesn't cover a) non binary people or b) trans people self ID-ing without any other steps.

If she'd left it as it could be seen as bullying/harassment that's one thing but what it absolutely is not is a breach of the EA!

Correct, but she is correct that its bullying and harassment just wrong about the equality act.
Implying that you can willfully and repeatedly correctly sex someone with no consequences is as bad as Implying that you must comply with demanded pronouns. Both are equally wrong in the law

Missing the point somewhat, but since when have people currently in their 40s been boomers?

NB has been classed as covered by GR in judgements and that it isn't in others.
So whether it is covered by GR or not has still to be clarified in the higher crts even though it is not covered by a GRC.
Unfortunately until a case of GR discrimination against a NB person is taken beyond a 1st tier crt its still a gray area of law.

Which law? Repeatedly using correct sex pronouns for a man invading a women’s toilet or shower area at work would be entirely reasonable. Whether correctly sexing someone in their absence would be bullying has yet to be ascertained.

Wilfully and repeatedly correctly sex someone? Have you heard yourself?
Thats what happens to babies when they are born - sometimes well before birth. They are wilfully and correctly sexed.

Came to say this! Idiots!

Well your example is extreme and accurate however it has nothing to do with this situation where all the staff are using she/her in meetings and to this woman's face when asked not to.

As to which law i was talking about the equality act. Regardless of whether NB falls under the characteristic of GR or not intentionally repeatedly correctly sexing somebody who is covered by it would be illegal discrimination and would be bullying and/or harassment unless in circumstances where the person's sex is relevant such as your example.

Yes, its the language used by judge in the forstater ruling so I suggest that you take it up with him.
We have the right not to use someone's chosen pronouns but we can't just call them anything we want, using a trans or NB persons name is a reasonable compromise that protects us from being accused of discrimination or bullying and/or harassment

It wouldn’t be illegal discrimination. Bullying and harassment when not linked to a protected characteristic is not illegal discrimination and would generally come under constructive dismissal- I.e. it isn’t that the people using she/her are breaking the law, it’s that the work place needs enforced policies that stop people from being bullied.

harassment can be a criminal offense in its own right but pretty sure what is described in that link would not come close to meeting the requirement.

I think one would have to be careful. The EA2010 frames discrimination as “because of” a protected characteristic, and harassment as “unwanted conduct related to” a protected characteristic. Wouldn’t you say that correctly sexing someone trans-identifying contrary to their wishes is “related to” that protected characteristic?

HR is wrong, NB is not covered by the Equalities Act, and the act was never intended to be used as a blunt weapon against people.

I would argue that bullying and harassment go both ways, demanding people refer to you in a way they are not comfortable with is also bully and harassment, especially if you use the company's no nothing HR Department to enforce you views on your co-workers.

That's an interesting perspective, I hadn't thought about it in that way..

The people bullied out of their jobs or into tribunals seem to be mostly? entirely? fairly pragmatic about getting along with trans colleagues/ trans ally employer, but they have limits, e.g. sharing changing rooms with members of the opposite sex.

An example of this absolutism is the man who was let go from his prisoner transfer job although he did not insist on using 'correct sex' pronouns, he was willing to use 'they' when referring to trans prisoners.
That wasn't enough, he had to use their preferred pronouns or there's the door..

You make a good point, TheywontletmehavethenameIwant -
who is being unreasonable and bullying?

At this point, Boomer just means "someone older than me holding a viewpoint I don't like". I think the scale goes:
Good Person Like Me
Boomer
Karen (like a Boomer, but worse cos female)
Bigot
Nazi

Note the lack of neutral ground and repent, motherfuckers!

This.

Pretty much anything can be counted as bullying and harassment in the workplace, depending on circumstances and context.

https://www.acas.org.uk/bullying-at-work

But the HR person does seem to be conflating bullying/harassment with discrimination.

It is never ‘would be’ - it is ‘could be’. All ETs have to work around circumstances and context like in any type of policy and law.

Yep. It all comes down to hugely expensive and difficult employment tribunals. The rules are vague or dont exist. It all must be thrashed out by lawyers.

Does 'you're a stinky poo pants and everyone hates you' go above Nazi?

The thing is that outside of the workplace the NB person isn’t going to be able to control how people refer to them. Unless they walk around with a big banner, most who don’t know them will just sex them appropriately. Trans people do tend to have some signifiers whether it be the way they dress or look but NBs don’t. Somehow they are going to have to develop some resilience or they are going to be constantly in a state of distress.

no because the protected characteristic isn't 'trans identifying' (and most NB people wouldn't consider themselves 'trans identifying anyway) it's 'gender reassignment,' which is very specifically defined " covering anyone proposing, undergoing, or having undergone a process to reassign their sex." This does not cover being NB.

Again. If HR advice to staff not using incorrect pronouns was 'If you continue to use 'she' to refer to X when you've repeatedly been asked not to, you could end up facing a disciplinary on the grounds of bullying,' that's one thing.

Ideally I think a better response would be 'We can't actually insist you refer to your colleague as 'they' if it's against your beliefs, but can we come to some sort of compromise i.e. just using their name/job title?' but if they want to go further, it's not inaccurate to say it could be seen to be bullying, in the same way as repeatedly calling someone by a nickname after being told they don't like it or mispronouncing their name could be.

What's completely inappropriate and incompetent is completely misrepresenting the EA to threaten them into compliance.