Pulled up at work for ‘trans views’

The problem with that is that it is still suggesting there might be some other type of women. Which, of course, there isn't.

I hate the term cis. I wonder if it’s time to refer to ourselves as ‘biological women’ which is an indisputable fact. I’d prefer woman but for arguments sake, I identify as and am factually a biological woman?
anyone who argues can be referred the SC verdict.

@5128gap - agree, the question is loaded to make the TW point. Fury at OP's reply is because she would not allow the point to be made. She subverted the training by implying/making clear that TWs cannot in anyway relate or be compared to women. Trainer must have frothed at the mouth. Quite funny 😂except for the outcome for OP from her management.

On another thread, a poster suggested OP should respond, "it is inappropriate for you to assume I am cis gender or to discuss my gender in any way, except if it has specific bearing on my work duties".

From a legal perspective, the courts have made it clear that gender critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act. It may therefore be unlawful harassment to insist OP accepts the "cis woman" label or uses it. If she faces any disciplinary action or other disadvantage due to this, it would be unlawful discrimination.

It is nearly 4 years since the EAT decided that GC beliefs are protected (Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe), added to which we now have the Supreme Court judgement that "woman" in the Equality Act means a biological woman (which in turn means what we think it means, not what trans activists claim it means). NHS management really should have got the memo by now.

I think the idea of it is to contrast anything favourable a woman discloses about her experience with the unfortunate TW who doesn't have 'cis privelege'; and take anything negative she says and say that TW experience this too (only worse) so therefore we are all in it together. It's a loaded question designed to enable a 'learning point' to be made. The learning point being "TW are women just like you, only particularly marginalised." It doesn't matter how the woman answers, the response from the trainer is preplanned to make that point.

What I meant is this: this thread is about how management are treating the OP and how she should respond.

She has already told them why she didn't give her experience of living as a c^s woman" at the training session. Her stance is valid, her beliefs are protected and she doesn't need to make excuses or give explanations.
The behaviour of management is getting close to harassment or creating a hostile environment for the OP - IMO, IANAL - it certainly is not reasonable or inclusive to the OP, not equal or fair treatment. The OP's next step should be to protect herself and make it clear to management that they can't treat her like that. Mollifying the person X is not her problem.

Edited for clarity and formatting

Also, what an bonkers and personal question to ask someone's "experience of being a "cis" women"...what are you supposed to say:

• born female in 1980
• started periods in 1992
• fell pregnant in 2002
• gave birth in 2003
• continued to use the same pronouns ?!
• still female in 2025

Or are those not so called cis women experienced because they apply to "transmen". Except the last two? Idk.

But isn;t this in part connected to your professional integrity? If you can’t be allowed to be true to your values, if you are required to pretend and say yes when you know something is wrong… how can patients trust you and your fellow professionals. This is something that has deeply perplexed me about the BMA and the NHS’s wholesale refusal to follow the science. It has decimated my trust in people that I have always assumed were at the highest standard of education, professional standard and integrity.

They have no right to “pull you up” on your views, we are allowed to not believe in religion and belief systems. What you do next depends on your employment situation, how much you love your job, how much you need this particular job, how argumentative and confrontational you are. I’d join the Free Speech Union, tonight if possible. Arm yourself with the legal arguments, in case work decide to take it further. They can’t do anything about you not using the requested cult language. But they might be deluded enough to try so you need to be ready for your counter argument. You can’t harass or discriminate against a trans or non binary person but you also can’t be compelled to go along with it unquestioning. Make sure you can recite the Maya Forstater case and the Equality Act. I’d wait and see what they do next. But if they try to enforce it, I’d start with a politely worded letter.

I can definitely understand why some people feel that way as in some work settings there are some pretty aggressive policies and it definitely can feel an bit oppressive.
For me personally I have no issue the language someone prefers to refer to them as well as to directly address them. I just feel it’s a reasonable expectation that courtesy and attempt to help others feel included is extended to everyone. If you or anyone else doesn’t feel comfortable using the pronouns requested by others due to their gender critical views that’s also a perfectly reasonable position. You are also correct OP doesn’t have to provide an explanation but if I were going to that would be my reasoning on why being asked to refer to myself as a Cis woman doesn’t feel like a small, neutral act of support at all. I think a lot of trans women genuinely won’t see the issue. Their gender identity is so critical to their sense of self that they likely struggle with the idea it’s something many women want to reject.

Sorry if this has already been suggested but I would urgently write down exactly what they said and what you said in writing so you've got your own record of events, in a manner you could share with others if needed.

It might not be what you said was accurately recorded and something very vague was passed to management. This would be the first thing I would be looking to clear up.

But I would be really careful about how to proceed as whether you take further action or not it could come back to bite you. I would be looking to get some decent legal or union advice asap.

This is true. I will give some thought to refining my analogy!

They definitely did as the word woman is regularly used in long standing legislation.

Well good for you! I don't actually share your views, nor disagree with them. Your employer has appointed you to a position where they expect you to be role model, they can't then require you to espouse illegal views.

(FWIW I think that the 0.3% of the population who are trans should be left to get on with life however they want, but they also shouldn't dictate how the 99.7% of us live our lives either).

Agreed and a good idea.

You did nothing wrong.

For those who don't understand the problem with requiring women to accept "cis" being applied to them, it is akin to being asked at a session on Catholicism (run by your workplace, no less) to give your experience of living as a Pagan.

It's significantly worse than that.

If a "cis woman" was a woman who says she's a woman and a "trans woman" was a woman who says she's a man, then that analogy would work.

You'd just be disapproving of a term for "not trans".

The real problem is that they use "cis" and "trans" to break down "women" into the female ones and male ones. So by using it you're conceding the definition of "woman" itself.

Wrong thread, sorry. No idea how to delete the pic!

It's almost as though our legislators knows exactly what a man is and what a woman is when the chips are down.

Forcing language on someone (especially a word as loaded as 'cis') is the opposite of inclusive.

You sounded perfectly reasonable - you don't identify as a 'cis' woman so how can you speak as one. (this is true whether you agree with the whole concept or not)

That’s so odd of them. You are expected to use the language of their beliefs, not only about themselves, but when referring to yourself as well. Gender is an abstract noun.

Being asexual isn’t any more a protected characteristic than being voluntarily celibate, highly sexed or an incel. If this person has declared themselves it at work then they just like the attention. “Morning everyone, by the way it’s important you know I’m not interested in sex” 🙄

I hope your place of work didn’t put any importance on that!

Up until this quote reading the thread gave me the picture of someone trying to do their job whilst ignoring gender politics, and being bullied by an employer. But now I think that you actually relish the fight. This is of course what your employer wants from you when they say that as a Senior you should be a role model, it's just that they have a political agenda that they aren't entitled to hold.

Doesn't that apply to all minorities, the majority have to walk on eggshells to not 'offend' them whereas they can be as offensive as they wish!