Pulled up at work for ‘trans views’

After Forstater and the SC judgement, asking to be referred to as a woman is not confrontational. It's legal. The employer's stance is illegal

I am guessing they saw your attititude as confrontational, which is sounds like it was.

It also means that countless working women repeatedly subject to these coercive control techniques who're getting home from work don't get to read this and take note of the massive support the OP has from ordinary women.

Very good response.
I completely agree with you , i would be livid if i was referred to as 'cis' ,i absolutely loathe the word.
Have you asked them why the same level of respect and acceptance is not offered equally to you and your choice of how you wish to be addressed.

In which case it’s constructive dismissal.

Why's this thread been moved onto Feminism? It's a work place bullying issue and countless exasperated women have been commenting.

I'd email for clarification. Deliberately. Stating what you said at training and what management said. 🪏🕳️

Play theses idiots at their own game and tell them that you identify as a Dormouse and for six months of the year you won't be coming into work as you will be hibernating.

Failure to pay you or sacking you will result in your taking them to court for their failure to be inclusive.

everyone deserves to be treated with courtesy and to not be physically attacked by anyone else. People should not be treated differently because of what is in their underwear

@IzzyHandsIsMySpiritAnimal - first of all, yes, people deserve to be treated with courtesy.

But the physical attacks? They are coming from one sex only - the male sex, which includes transwomen. Women are far, far less likely to react with violence, as the ONS can confirm. Transwomen offend at male rates, not female ones.

”What is in their underwear” is a very weird way of saying “their sex”. People absolutely do get treated differently by sex because because a) we live in a patriarchal society that discriminates against women and b) if men and women are not separated in some instances, women suffer violence, discrimination, physical injury, cannot win in sports, cannot receive same sex care to guarantee their dignity and privacy… the list goes on.

As a society and in law we have asserted a need for single sex services and space. If you think that’s wrong, by all means start a campaign.

There is nothing mean or unkind about safeguarding, women’s rights and our boundaries.

The clue to my response is in the term cisGENDER. I reject gender, do not impose one upon me. I am an adult human female which means I am a woman, this is a fact, not an identity.

The OP rejects the term cis, who are you to decide she can't or dictate to the rest of us what we are allowed to be concerned by?

Why are you making, frankly batshit, claims about people being "physically attacked"?
Do you understand that words have meanings.

Tell them your religion doesn't agree with trans ideology and if they want to persecute you on the basis of religious belief, have at it.

Watch them squirm.
Fucking dicks.

How is it possible to answer a question about experience of living? Living as a woman, I mean what does that even mean? Do you want to know my life story? Are you interested in all the problems I've had, all the sexism I've encountered, do you want to know about my pregnancies, do you want to know about my miscarriages, my painful periods, my struggle with fitting in, do you want to know about my autism, do you want to know about my relationships? Do you want to know my family history (there's a lot of oppression in it, women being punished for simply being female)?

I don't want to tell you about any of those things, particularly in a public arena in a training session where nobody cares anyway. It's none of your business. How I live is private. And as for living as a cis woman, why don't you ask me if you are really interested, about my experience as a woman at work? I could talk about that. But you wouldn't like it.

Exactly! His preferences have to be respected and acknowledged but OP’s doesn’t?

I'd say your manager needs training and a reminder that gender critcal beliefs are protected under the Equality Act. I'm really impressed how you handled yourself during the training, OP; well done.

If a transperson’s existence is dependent on the beliefs of others it’s all getting too complex for me - I only exist provided I can call other people what I like and insist that they talk about me the way I choose . but if I refuse to call others what they like then I don’t vanish out of existence although I should shut up and pretend I’m not there ?

and I thought “I think therefore I am “ was the end of it

OP I think you do have to respond by email outlining what happened and what was said to you afterwards. Otherwise being cynical, this could be used against you in the future if there are any complaints against you, to show that you have “form” on this matter. If you let it go it could look as if you accepted this rebuke as you didn’t challenge it at the time. It does need to be challenged. I would want to know whether this matter was treated as either an informal or a formal reprimand. They would have to answer that question in writing as it is a reasonable request.

So you have to be completely inclusive of the trans person and how they'd like to be referred to, but nobody has to give a shiny shit about how you'd like to be referred to?

Sounds fair.

I think what you said was valid. Why do you have to ascribe to their values and call them ‘they’ whilst you’re not allowed to object to being called a ‘cis woman’? Double standards 🙄

There’s no such thing as a cis woman. You’re either a man or a woman.

On a separate note, my partner (woman) works for the NHS. I had a baby last year via sperm donor and my partner took parental leave. Partner had to fill out numerous forms regarding her ‘paternity leave’, a term that she challenged with her organisation but nothing changed.

So they are a bunch of hypocritical virtual signalers. They are only selectively inclusive.

By saying you don’t agree with being called cis, you could be accused of denying a trans person’s existence and experience

Huh?!?

This or the rest of your post doesn’t make sense, by not using ‘cis’ you are not denying anyone’s existence and experience, they are trans women and we (I) am a woman, how is calling myself a woman denying a trans woman’s experience / existence, I completely recognise that trans women exist, I don’t need to refer to myself as a ‘cis woman ‘ in order to validate them

No need for OP to overreact. She's not said anything that could lawfully lead to her dismissal, and if it leads to her being treated unfavourably then she will have grounds for a grievance. The tide is turning fast and I think the OP has been caught up in a bit of a last hurrah by employers who haven't realised and are late to the party.

See, I don't think the OP has to do any explaining.

And also - little bugbear of mine - talking about someone in the third person is not addressing them. When you address someone, you use their name, or their title, or an honorific, or just "you".
They have no right to tell you to use wrong-sex third person pronouns when you are talking about them and it is not a matter of respect, it's a demand for compliance.

Only one of those two groups is demanding that others validate their existence perception of themselves though.