I may have to defend my GC position

I am a lawyer and I help people negotiate through disputes. I can ask searching questions on behalf of Clients using all of the “clever clever“ techniques outlined above, but I cannot do it when it is just for myself and it is to do with a subject I feel passionately about.
Maybe I’ve misunderstood the original poster but when she talked about getting tangled up that made me think it would be better for her to stick with a plain statement of her Position expressed in a single sentence. Just my thoughts for what it’s worth .

There are 9 protected characteristics by the 2010 Equality Act, this legislation informs all diversity, equality and inclusion policies.
These are:
Age
Disability
Gender reassignment
Marriage & civil partnership
Pregnancy & Maternity
Race
Religion or belief
Sex
Sexual orientation

Gender and Gender Identity are not protected characteristics.

Last year many local authorities, public services including schools etc , charities and businesses were found to be misquoting and possibly misapplying the law. When alerted, they have corrected the policies

WPUK
'Grassroots women’s pressure forces local authorities to comply with the law over sex and gender'
"Local councils around Britain have been forced to change legally inaccurate equalities information on their websites by women’s rights campaigners. Many authorities have been found to be in breach of the Equalities Act by stating that “gender” is a protected characteristic, as opposed to “sex,” and some authorities have listed the two terms interchangeably, which they have sought to rectify due to sustained campaigning." (continues)
womansplaceuk.org/grassroots-womens-pressure-forces-local-authorities-to-comply-with-the-law-over-sex-and-gender/

In July 2018 the government made a significant announcement about the Equality Act.

James Kirkup,
"Some facts about the events that preceded the Government statement here that the coming consultation on the Gender Recognition Act will be narrowly drawn and not affect the Equality Act’s single sex exemptions.
I offer these facts because some are claiming “there was never any question of removing/amending EA exceptions.” Those claims are either mistaken or dishonest.

August 2015
Stonewall submission to the Women & Equalities Select Committee says MPs should amend the EA to
“remove exemptions, such as access to single-sex spaces”

Jan 2016
Women & Equalities Committee says EA should be amended so that

“occupational requirements provision and / or the single-sex / separate services provision shall not apply”.

July 2016
Govt response to W&E Committee says: “we agree with the principle of this recommendation” on EA exemptions and seeks evidence for “future policy discussions”

July 2017
Govt promises GRA reform “ as part of a broad consultation of the legal system that underpins gender transition.”

July 2017
Stonewall commits to “advocate for the removal” of EA provisions allowing sex-based discrimination.

June 2018
Govt says:

“We are clear that we have no intention of amending the Equality Act 2010, the legislation that allows for single sex spaces.”

In sum: MPs and others told govt to amend/remove Equality Act single-sex exemptions. Govt considered doing so. Then govt ruled it out. / ends"

(thread contains links to the relevent documents)
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1004635839480164352.html?refreshed=yes

In a work environment I would avoid being too confrontational. I would try and follow what they are saying and highlight logical conclusions and question if you have understood correctly. Let the audience form their own opinions, but ensure they truly understand what they are being told. Maybe sow a few seeds of doubt by referring to "theory, "your definition of a woman" etc. to try to emphasise what isn't facts.

"So transwomen are women, as you say being a woman refers to a gender identity not a sex class. Where does that leave biological women who don't have a feminine identity? Are we saying sex based provisions and protections no longer apply to them? "

"In your terminology is there any word we can use to describe people with the female reproductive role?"

Maybe misunderstand a few points to ask sensible questions that they will have to rebuke.

"How can young people be encouraged to be their authentic selves in the body they have without changing it?"
" Shouldn't we encourage young people to be tolerant of any form gender expression, without linking it to biological sex? Then they'd be less appetite to transition "
" why would any facilities be split by gender expression not sex? Wait... you say they should be split by gender identity not even expression, so just how someone feels, nothing outwardly discernable? How does that work? What's the point in segregation?"

As flying says, clever questions work better in theory than in practice. The OP has said she isn’t a great speaker. I wouldn’t take that tack OP

Yeah I'd ask naive questions that expose the lack of logic.

Are you going to the session?

JellySlice
Just stay calm and explain that you disagree. The trainer isn't likely to go postal, and if they do all the delegates will be shocked.
The other tactic, which I don't really advocate because it feels less honest, is just to ask questions.
"So are you saying someone who occasionally crossdresses is trans?"
"Are you saying that all trans women are women?"
"Ok so are you saying a man who occasionally crossdresses is a woman in your eyes?"
"Are you saying that he should always be treated as a woman or only when he is dressed like a woman?"
That kind of thing. Again you have to be super calm, and just keep clarifying everything. It has to be the kind of question that encourages committal in their answer. You'd have to do this from the perspective of someone who knew nothing about the subject so if you're GC at work it isn't the right option. Also if you're naturally shy then blurting out a load of questions won't seem natural.
Finally, just because the trainer is trans and from stonewall, doesn't mean they'll be any more highbrow than JB. It's just a person, affiliated with and paid by a lobby group, not a brain surgeon or rocket scientist. They'll follow a training programme, they'll take questions, your employer will tick a box, that's it.
Just my 2p. Good luck.

Also...maybe the best you cam hope for is to plant a seed rather than "win" the argument. So don't get too disheartened if you don't feel people got what you were saying. They will go away and think about it, maybe do their own reading. That's why so many people end up here. Nothing inspires others to research more than hearing a reasonable person be called a bigot.

Always fight for what you are for, not what you are against.
Brilliant advice.
I'd stick to facts, may be have a couple of examples to hand. Laurel Hubbard is a good one. Or Lisa Hauxwell.

"I think gender identity is your personality. I think it's sexist and regressive to link personality differences to your sex."

"I agree with many people that today's transgender ideology is sexist and homophobic."

“I don’t share the trainer’s opinion on that”
“I have concerns about he impact of that proposal on safeguarding”

R0wantrees you do sterling work here you really do
Agreed

TWAW is the hardest thing to counter because it is emotional not rational. I respond with something like "and you are entitled to your opinion" and then explain my point of view on that, which is that whilst I might be supportive and polite to individuals, I do not believe TWAW. I just keep pointing out that it is a belief, an opinion and I do not share it.
It's very simple and very effective, because much of that emotional argument rests on TWAW being an article of faith.
It is less "rude" than a "no they're not" response, and it emphasises the fact TWAW is only an opinion; there is no factual retort to this.
(This is more for if you end up in an argument and don't want to get flustered).

Important information following Michael Conroy's attendance at a Mermaids' training session for teachers December 2018.
The session was recorded.

Report with transcript link on final page:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3454658-recording-of-mermaids-training?pg=13

Janice Turner Times article which refers to the recording of the Mermaids' training: 'Trans ideologists are spreading cod science
Those who defend controversial charity’s right to a £500,000 lottery grant should really listen to what it is preaching'
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3457686-Janice-Turner-article-in-the-Times-about-Mermaids

Mermaids' response to Times article:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3458163-Mermaids-Response-to-the-Times-Article

R0wantrees you do sterling work here you really do

Right, it’s best you prep for that context then.

I have found that a single short sentence is besr

Jelly, are you going to raise the subject yourself? Or are you expecting it to be raised by others (in what context?)

The suicide stats aren’t just untrue, they are potentially self-fulfilling. They promote suicidal ideation.

Samaritans' guidance is well established & is not a stylistic guide. It is based on the fundemental principles of supporting vulnerable people, especially children and young people who are experiencing emotional distress. The reason why Samaritans advise not drawing causal links is because vulnerable people are susceptable to identifying with this and thus the risk of them self-harming etc is increased.
It is well accepted that children and young people questioning their gender identity are particularly vulnerable. How is it possible that those who claim to promote their rights are so reckless in the constant repeating rates of suicide ideation rates with apparent disregard for the impact on this group?
www.samaritans.org/media-centre/media-guidelines-reporting-suicide

Following his comments in The Guardian article which predicted a 'flurry of suicides' Stephen Whittle (Press for Change and Govt legal expert adviser for transgender reforms) was challenged on an FWR thread about irresponsible suicide comments & the potential impact on vulnerable people within the transgender community.

He considered the points made, acknowledged the importance of Samaritans' guidance and the basis which informs them.

Stephen Whittle returned to the thread to advise that he had contacted the Guardian to request his comments be edited in the following manner:
(extract)
"It has been brought to my attention that my response conflicts with the IPSO/Samaritans Guidance on reporting about Suicide, which say at
Point 2:
“there is a risk of imitational behaviour due to ‘over-identification’.
Vulnerable individuals may identify with a person who has died, or with the circumstances in which a person took their own life.
For example, combining references to life circumstances, say a debt problem or job loss, and descriptions of an easy-to-imitate suicide
method in the same report, could put at greater risk people who are vulnerable as a result of financial stress.”
And at point 3:
Over-simplification of the causes or perceived ‘triggers’ for a suicide can be misleading and is unlikely to reflect accurately the complexity
of suicide.
For example, avoid the suggestion that a single incident, such as loss of a job, relationship breakdown or bereavement, was the cause.
And at point 5:
“Be careful not to promote the idea that suicide achieves results.”

It is clear in retrospect that my comment was ‘ill thought out’ and completely inappropriate, as it could lead vulnerable and/or young trans people to consider taking their own lives, and clearly nothing could be further from my wishes. It should not have been printed.

To ensure that my comments, and your publication, meets with the IPSO/Samaritans guidance, I would be very grateful if you would amend the online comment, removing any reference to attempts or suicide" (continues)
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3397010-Guardian-article-on-MPs-concern-with-GRA?pg=7

Just marking my place as I may be in a similar situation in work this year

The suicide stats aren’t just untrue, they are potentially self-fulfilling. They promote suicidal ideation.

Challenge suicide stats, they aren't true. Kids didn't kill themselves years ago so why do we need sexist lobby groups in our schools now?