Thread by @MForstater

Interesting discussion here.

What is emerging (as with AEA v EHRC) is that policies that says people *must* treat colleagues as if they believe they are the opposite sex, on demand and at all times is unlikely to be lawful

https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1409139618084229121

The consensus that seems to be emerging here is that in areas of work & working life where sex matters it cannot be harassment to refer to a person's sex.

So employers need to consider where sex matters & how upset can be reasonably avoided (eg. by providing unisex alternatives)

They need to have reality based conversations w employees e.g. xxx prefers to be called "she", you are asked to do that as a courtesy (or at least not use "he") but we will not interpret this as a statement of belief that they have changed sex or consent to share facilities.

.. And to trans staff "we understand that you want to change your name, title & preferred pronouns & you may undertake plastic surgery" we will ensure u are not discriminated against because of this & we can offer alternatives to sharing facilities to protect your dignity...

...but u have to respect that there many employees & customers do not believe that male people can become female etc, & you cannot impose manifestations of yr belief on them where it creates a hostile environment, violates their dignity

There are xx situations where sex matters

i.e.both believers in gender theory and those that don't are asked to moderate the manifestations of their belief in situations where other employees rights conflict

Employers shouldn't force the two groups into situations of ambiguity or hostility but be clear where sex matters

A policy of endevouring to use preferred pronouns as a courtesy is a reasonable ask of adults in a working environment, as long as sex-based safeguards are not undermined.

But there are groups (e.g. due to age, disability, race (language)& belief for whom this policy would be a detriment & would likely be indirect discrimination. Therefore orgs should consider whether alternative measures could make the policy less discriminatory to these groups

The way of thinking about this that i am describing is not radical but is how you would deal with other conflicts of rights (e.g. between employees with different beliefs).

And you can see that this is how courts were thinking about this... eg in 2003

a-question-of-consent.net/2020/08/16/cro…