Pronouns in B.C. courts should not be debated, says trans lawyer

Editor’s note: A previous version of this article incorrectly suggested that the resolution called for a ban on the inclusion of pronouns in court introductions. It has been corrected to reflect the fact that the resolution calls for a debate on the existing practice directive.

VANCOUVER (NEWS 1130) — The Law Society of British Columbia is considering a resolution lawyer Adrienne Smith says “feels like an attack on transgender lawyers” like them.

The resolution called for a debate on a practice directive that mandates all introductions in court include pronouns.

It was never like that before, causing potential embarrassment and confusion for trans and non-binary lawyers and clients misgendered in the courtroom.

RELATED: Lawyers to give pronouns in B.C. court under new trans-inclusive policy

After the resolution was posted on the Law Society of British Columbia’s member portal, it incited debate between supporters and opponents. Smith was one of the first commenters on the post.

Their stance is that the resolution is “a veiled attempt to attack the legitimacy, the integrity, and the dignity of transgender people.” Since they left their initial comment, about 150 more have come in, not all of them respectful.

“What’s clear from the discussion that has unfolded is that the proponents are not concerned about the practice directive so much as they are not particularly supportive of transgender rights,” they say.

“Part of the discussion is really an appeal to free speech and people resisting what they’re calling ‘compelled speech’ and having to say pronouns, but this is no more compelled speech than having to say your name to the court or to identify your client to the court and it doesn’t take a lot of time.”

Before, they say, the court and other lawyers would have to “just guess” what their pronouns were, and it can be insulting when they get it wrong. They see the directive as an example of basic courtesy, adding that being misgendered in session can be triggering and distracting for them.

Criticism of the policy disingenuous: lawyer

Some of the commenters on the online post complained that they weren’t consulted on the directive, but that’s not standard anyway, says Smith.

“I think it’s really a red herring,” they say. “For folks who aren’t trans, I’m puzzled to see how it’s their business and how it hurts them at all to have to take another two breaths to identify their pronouns and use my pronouns respectfully and more importantly, to use the pronouns of our clients, who we have a professional responsibility to represent to the best of our ability.”

Smith cherishes the supportive messages they have gotten from other trans and non-binary lawyers that show solidarity. Still, reading the comments was hard, and they worry about the possibility of appearing opposite one of the proponents of the resolution in court.

Just used my #trans #pronouns in the BC Court of Appeal. Guess what? The sky didn’t fall, and I didn’t have to be misgendered as a precondition for practicing law. Thanks for your support @CBA_BC #SOGIC #lawtwitter #bcpoli #bccourts

— Adrienne Smith Law ???????????????? (@VanAlias) February 8, 2021

“It feels like a small thing if you’re not subject to it, but I think we’ve seen from some recent jurisprudence coming out of the Human Rights Tribunal that a pronoun is part of your fundamental identity, and it’s a question of dignity,” they say.

“To suggest, as the proponents do, that we somehow forced this really minor, respectful practice directive I think is quite disingenuous. I’m afraid the resolution actually is an expression of suspicion about whether trans people are real and refusal to treat us with dignity and respect, and I find that quite concerning.”

RELATED: Gibsons, B.C. restaurant ordered to pay ex-worker $30,000 for gender identity discrimination

The Canadian Bar Association and Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia have both issued statements to their membership calling for opposition to the resolution. This is encouraging to Smith, who hopes their profession will become more welcoming to trans and non-binary people soon.

They also hope the members of the Law Society of British Columbia will vote against the resolution to open debate on pronouns in courtroom introductions.

“I don’t think trans identity is something that should be debated. I don’t think our entitlement to dignity and respect and human rights protection is something that should be debated,” they say. “But I’m encouraged that the profession is going to do the right thing and will defeat resolution at the upcoming AGM.”