A council worker who was hit with a £12,000 legal bill after a court battle over preferred pronouns said: “I have no regrets.”
Jim Orwin, 67, who was sacked by East Riding of Yorkshire Council for using the email footer ‘XYchromosomeGuy/AdultHumanMale’ also denied being homophobic or transphobic.
The ICT project manager joined the council in 2018 and ran into no problems until April 2022, when bosses sent an email suggesting staff add pronouns to their internal and external emails.
Mr. Orwin decided to adopt ‘XYchromosomeGuy/AdultHumanMale’ instead of he/him, they/them, etc.
Jim Orwin, 67, who was sacked by East Riding of Yorkshire Council for using the email footer ‘XYchromosomeGuy/AdultHumanMale’ has also denied being homophobic or transphobic.
The ICT project manager was suspended and eventually fired by the council (pictured in 2022) when he refused to change the footer of his emails.
Speaking exclusively to MailOnline from his home in Hull, East Yorkshire, Mr Orwin explained: “It wasn’t mandatory, it was to enter pronouns if you wanted to.” It was my decision to do it.
‘There was a drop down menu and it had he/him/his, she/her/hers, they/them/their, don’t show, or other. And in ‘other’ you could put whatever you wanted, and I chose that one.’
Orwin said he never asked to use pronouns at the end of his emails, the issue only started because East Riding of Yorkshire Council chief executive Caroline Lacey suggested staff “consider adding pronouns”.
Upon receiving the email, Orwin “quickly formed the opinion” that it had been done to “facilitate self-identification,” specifically gender.
Prior to this issue, Mr. Orwin would sign his name and position within the council.
Staff received a link to mypronouns.org to help them choose.
Orwin, who previously worked as a painter and decorator for 34 years before joining the council, said: “I went to that website and read every page and it said people should be able to put whatever they want in the footer of an email. electronic”. and that could change.
“There are neopronouns that people can make up, and if you wanted to put in one pronoun for one meeting and then another pronoun for another meeting, you could do that.”
Sitting next to his wife Julie, 66, Orwin said he clicked on “other” and discovered there were no restrictions on what he could enter.
“After reading everything I wanted to put something that only referred to me and did not refer in any way to anyone else,” he said.
“I felt like if I put something out there that was derogatory to someone else that I wouldn’t do anyway, then someone would pull me up right away.”
“So I put something that refers to me and it’s basic facts.”
Mr Orwin was invited by his line managers to switch to the pronoun, but he refused and was subsequently suspended and subsequently dismissed from his £27,000-a-year job in August 2022 after being summoned to a disciplinary hearing.
In May he took the authority to court, saying that they had discriminated against his beliefs and that he had been unfairly fired, since if he had remained silent he would have “facilitated the constant advance of evil.”
The panel heard that the council’s reason for introducing the policy was to “promote the inclusion of people who identify their gender in a way that is not necessarily consistent with their biological sex”.
Orwin told the hearing: ‘If the email had contained a genuine invitation simply for colleagues to add pronouns to email signatures and had not facilitated self-identification, I would have chosen the ‘Do not display’ option to not display the pronouns.
“As I firmly believe that announcing pronouns in emails or before meetings is a political gesture designed to intimidate anyone who does not embrace the controversial ideology of gender identity.”
Therefore, Mr. Orwin “interpreted” the email to allow employees to add their own pronouns instead of choosing from a list and decided to add the words “XYchromosomeGuy/AdultHumanMale.”
After adding them to his signature, he contacted his superior to notify him in advance.
When asked why he couldn’t just choose the “other” pronoun option, Mr. Orwin responded: “Not adding a pronoun would be accepting this garbage and it’s not an option I can choose.”
Orwin said he thought the only way to challenge the policy was to “adopt deliberately provocative pronouns.”
Although the tribunal panel dismissed his case and concluded that he had not been discriminated against, it did accept that his gender-critical beliefs amounted to a “protected philosophical belief within the meaning of section 10 of the Equality Act 2010”.
Employment judge Ian Miller concluded he had not been discriminated against by asking him to change his pronouns.
He said: “The real reason (Mr Orwin) decided to add ‘boy with XY chromosome/adult-human-man’ was in protest.”
Miller added: “The footer was designed to provoke and, given its acceptance of potential offence, we believe it was designed to offend.”
The judge said the implementation of the policy was “poorly thought out and poorly executed.”
Dismissing her allegations of discrimination, he said: ‘None of the treatment you experienced was due to your beliefs (or expression of beliefs).
Mr Orwin’s claim for unfair dismissal was also dismissed because it was “well within the range of reasonable responses from a reasonable employer”.
In awarding costs, the judge found that Mr. Orwin brought the suit “solely” because he “found objectionable both the concept of gender self-identification and the council’s decision to adopt a policy indicating that they believed the ideology of gender self-identification gender was valid.” .’
Mr Orwin has been ordered to pay the council £12,000 after an employment judge ruled his claim to the tribunal was “vexatious”.
He now enjoys retirement with his wife of 48 years and is able to spend more time with his seven grandchildren.
He said he will have to dip into his retirement savings to pay the £12,000.
“I think it’s all crazy. I regret not working at the city hall anymore, but if the same thing happened to me again I would do the same. “I don’t regret what I did,” Mr. Orwin said.
‘I think people should be able to identify what they want, but I don’t think it should be imposed on other people to have to address them that way.
“I am not homophobic or transphobic, my only firm belief is that everyone should be able to live their own life within the law, as long as they do not physically or mentally harm anyone else.”
Supportive Mrs Orwin said: ‘I feel sad for Jim. He really liked that job. He put everything into it.
“He’s always been a really decent guy.”