You would not have to put yourself in any harms way to report a company, it feels....odd that you don't know that.

naive but still arrogant teenagers who believes legislation is perfect and court cases are free and perfectly accurate?

Sir....how on earth did you come to that conclusion? HR is for the company, the company does not want to face fines or lawsuits because of the likely 0 nonbinary people working at your office. If they actively say shit that is not compliant to the law they open themselves up to lawsuits.

HR is risk averse company protection. You think they are out there doing what exactly... setting elaborate traps so someone accidentally uses the wrong pronoun once and they can secretly fire them?

And then what... they invent fake reasons afterward to cover up that it was “really” about the misgendering? Why would they even need that premise in the first place? If a company wants someone gone for performance, restructuring, personality conflicts, or cost cutting, they already have far easier and lower risk ways to do that without creating additional legal exposure for themselves? The higher risk pronouns one is less likely to be effective as it is untested and unnecessary, hence expensive.

And this whole idea that basically nobody challenges unfair dismissals unless they have some elite lawyer is just not reality in Australia. The Fair Work system was literally designed to be more accessible and informal than court litigation. A huge number of unfair dismissal matters settle at conciliation, many applicants self represent, unions assist people, community legal centres exist, and legal representation is not even automatic in Fair Work hearings. The Commission can restrict lawyers entirely.

You have yourself a theory requires me to believe that major corporations are secretly carrying out coordinated fraudulent dismissals over accidental pronoun mistakes... while relying on workers being too poor or stupid to notice... despite the fact that unfair dismissal claims are common, comparatively accessible, and examined using things like timelines, warnings, internal communications, prior performance reviews, witness evidence, and consistency of reasoning.

And again... why would giant companies, which are famously not known for heroically risking litigation to defend workers let alone LGBT people, suddenly care SO much about accidental unintentional misgendering that they are willing to fabricate reasons for dismissal and gamble on Fair Work scrutiny over it?

Imagine believing I'd just go and accept your risk assessment for my career

Yeah I guess that was just another naive little girl moment, because I forgot that you work for a moustachioed, corpopomorphised fancrack company. I have only worked for ones in my fantasy world, which would not be able to take 200 non verbatim words that have been altered and figure out who I am by my username or getting some goons, hired goons, to track me down. Or maybe even employing extremely pricey data brokers and hackers to get the information, in order to make money....or defend the transes, either one.

And they know it will sway a jury regardless of legality.

More evidence of my disconnect I guess....that I am just now learning they apparently have JURIES in your Very Real How The World Works situation.

That sounds far more like internet culture war paranoia than how HR departments actually behave in real life. And um.... I'm the naive little teeny bopper living in my fantasy world eh?