Haven't read whole thread, but in your shoes I would contact Free Speech Union for advice before doing anything. Training sessions have been an absolute minefield in this regard. They will be interested and should offer some free advice. (You can DM me if you want, as I have a bit of a history in regard to this sort of thing.)

@TheodoraCrumpet Please explain your logic and how you have concluded the following: 'Trans women are not men'.

Could I tweak that?

There are women
and there are men.

there is technically no such thing as a transwoman - simply a man pushing the gender boundaries of being a man in that culture

you can’t be trans as it is scientifically impossible to transition…

they can’t be women as they are men.

so: woman / man

I’m sorry but there lies the problem.

Trans women are biological men.

That is exactly the clarification of the Equality Act that came from the SC. When people start to still say trans women are not men, you are fudging the legal reality and then we get into people being very confused.

it doesn’t mean trans women don’t exist. It just means they are a subset of men not women and as such although they can present as a women, they don’t lose their biological sex

True, they may as well have asked you if you were Sunni or Shia.

Bollocks to that. Setting a good example doesn't mean changing who you are. Can you imagine a religion awareness session where you were asked to give your experience as a sinner/ non- believer/ infidel! Respecting other people doesn't mean lying about your beliefs or pretending to buy into theirs.

They have seriously overstepped here. Asking for their concerns in writing is an excellent idea

This. It’s as though the OP had been asked their religion in this “training” & is now being chastised as a heretic because she declared that she is an atheist.

You were perfectly reasonable and did nothing wrong, didnt offend anyone. Its one thing to push people to refer to other people as "them" but what you describe you were pulled up for sounds ridiculous.

I frequently think a lot of the transphobia on MN is ridiculous. Trans women are not men. But like OP, I would draw the line at being made to declare my own gender identity. If I want to be precious about it, I don't identify as the kind of body I inhabit, or enjoy the assumptions that are made on the basis of the appearance of my female body, and I certainly wouldn't want someone else to declare it as my identity on my behalf. No, I don't require a special label to clarify this. My given name is fine.

I haven't read the whole thread, but if I were you I would point out to your employer that the courts have ruled that your gender critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act, and you find it offensive to be referred to as a cis woman.

Are you asking for the male version? That would be 'cis man'.
Or are you asking about transwomen?

So in this neo-religion, a 'woman is anyone who identifies as a woman' (a terrible, circular definition which defies reality and sense). This means that a female woman (a female adult human who identifies as a woman) is a 'cis woman'. A male woman (a male adult human who identifies as a woman) is a 'transwoman', but of course, it is terrible herecy for me to use 'male' when explaining this and to not have the gap in 'transwoman'.

That was part of why the SC ruled as it did. It is a massive word salad and makes zero sense. You can’t find a way to make it sense.

Ultimately that is a just a group for anyone (except if you are male same sex attracted- they might get upset to not be included!)

Might seem odd, but as long as you aren't unlawfully discriminating against anyone it's fine.

I do not share any part of your pseudoreligion, and even by your own catechisms you are being a massive hyprocrite.

A mixed sex group for people who identify as lesbians.

OK, let’s just take a step back and think about that one for a moment shall we?

Why are you imposing gender on me? I reject the constraints of gender entirely.

If I want to lay a patio or service my car I will not be looking to the gender gods for approval.

I have a sex, an immutable characteristic, which tells you about my biology but nothing about my personality or interests.

I have seen it argued by pro-trans activists that asking people to state their pronouns when everyone is going round introducing themselves is itself problematic, precisely because there are people who identify as trans but don't want to have to out themselves. So if, say, a man who identifies (but only internally for now) as a woman is asked to state their pronouns, they either have to say "she/her" and invite incredulity, or "he/him" and deal with the internal stress. (I'm not endorsing this, merely reporting it, although it seems to make sense once you accept the premise.) Or they can say "I'd rather not say", which is itself outing.

(There are also some pro-trans people who reject the idea of being non-binary. At least if you are born a man and want to identify as a woman, you are accepting that men and women exist.)

Part of the stupidity of <waves hands> "all this" is that nobody on the happy-clappy side has sat down and thought about the logical consequences of their lines of argument, as shown above. Another is that OP's position of not recognising the concept of gender identity (which, unlike biological sex, is entirely socially constructed) is equally valid. Indeed, the claims of the colleague mentioned in the OP reinforce that — if they are allowed to not have a gender ("agender") then surely everyone else can. Or is "not having a gender" also a gender identity? 🤔

The whole thing is philosophical bobbins, but I suspect that if you took this kind of argument to HR, it would end with them saying (after checking that nobody can overhear) "look, @wherearethemarsbars, can't you just play along, we have to be nice to these people, otherwise they will call us bigots and the company will be getting boycotted". OP's position is probably shared by over half of her colleagues, they just don't have the courage to say so (often for very good reason, I should add — we can't all be Tank Man or Rosa Parks).

One bright spot is that after the SC ruling, employers are going to be thinking very, very hard about doing anything to GC people that might end up in front of a tribunal, because they will be getting their derrières handed to them on a silver platter.

That clarifies matters beautifully. Presumably there must be lots of rulings people don't like, I'm sure I could think of a couple if I put my mind to it. But it's reassuring to know that I can just "not recognise" them.

The thing is... if this dude wants to be known as a 'they' then you are entitled to be known as a "woman" not a "cis woman".

We really do need a

😱

reaction button!

God they sound tedious!

If they want to have a mixed sex group for people who identify as lesbians, the ruling doesn't prevent them. It's just that they can't exclude heterosexual men.

I understand 100% what the term cis woman means. However, I am a woman. thats my pronouns thats how I like to be referred to. if one of my colleagues prefers to be referred to in some other way I 100% respect that. but respect goes both ways. you cant ask for it if you arent prepared to give it. thats called being an adult. If I find forms with the word cis woman on then I cross this word out and I correct every single time someone refers to me as such and that is absolutely my right so to do and I will continue doing it.

Quite. It usually seems to translate as "I identify as special and interesting" and...they aren't.

I believe the word you are looking for is transwomen , since it appears that only men who say they are women think it is vital to their self esteem and “identity” to diminish women by removing our right to call ourselves women by labelling us with unnecessary prefixes.

“Thank you for your presentation about your religion. It was very interesting. My beliefs are different and protected in law against employment discrimination. Are there any legal proceedings you’d like to begin?”