Pulled up at work for ‘trans views’

I agree with asking them to put it in writing.

And then I'd be replying saying, "So you're telling me that not only do I have to be inclusive by referring to other people in a way that reflects their beliefs, I also have to be inclusive by referring to myself in a way that reflects their beliefs but not mine? Can you point me to where it says this in the HR handbook, and if it does, has it been updated since the Forstater EAT judgment?"

Is this a cis apple or trans apple ?

no it’s an orange . It doesn’t have any apple in it

in the same way women ( which means a specific sex ) can’t be a cisgender women because there is no rule or law of physics that says women ( sex) MUST have a gender

women also don’t have to have make up , a telly, a job, a chair to sit on, a photo frame , a copy of the bible ….

we don’t label all these women with special terms

I wish Christinapple would take themselves elsewhere...anywhere...

I regard being called ‘cis,’ in this context, as insulting as being called a ‘kaafir’ by a Muslim or a ‘goy’ by a Jewish adherent.

Any organisation that insists you accept it, regardless of your personal beliefs, is being discriminatory. I’d be tempted to make comments about how far they’d get at Tribunal with their attempts to create such a hostile work environment for you and the, (unfortunately less vocal), majority of your colleagues).

They can. It doesn't mean anything, though. And I thought the gender police said it was illegal to assume someone's gender ID just by looking at them? In which case the trainers violated their own code of conduct.

🥱

I would have said something similar op. I’m not a cis woman. I’m a woman. I find the term cis woman offensive and it doesn’t describe me.

Yes it does. If you start talking about cis-women and transwomen you turn them into subsets of women and in turn 'woman' becomes an identity rather than simply one's sex. If woman is an identity (cis v trans) and male people can be women what is this based on? Essentially it's based on feelings and stereotypes of femininity.
If I called myself a 'cis'woman to differentiate myself from 'trans'women I'm saying that what make me a woman is the feelings and stereotypes when in fact for me, and many of the women I know, being a woman is based purely on my femaleness and the rest is just likes, dislikes and personality.

Woman (look it up) means an adult female human being - it covers the not being trans issue

Nothing.

👌

OP, if you employer is struggling with the SC ruling and their own deep misogyny to the point they genuinely can’t understand how a biological women is protected in law, ask them whether they think it would be appropriate to ask a wheelchair user to explain to their colleagues in a training session how it’s actually quite nice to have a sit down all the time, or whether it would be ok to put a black person on the spot in a training and make them describe their “experience of being black” for the benefit of colleagues who aren’t black.

I would make a complaint on the grounds of harassment based on your gender critical beliefs. GC beliefs are protected legally and your employer is acting very badly.

"As a nurse in a senior position, I believe I am already setting a good example for junior colleagues by showing them that it is OK not to be bullied into submission when an unscientific and harmful belief framework is being imposed upon us without proper consideration of the valid diversity of views on the topic. I was misgendered by being called a "cis" woman which implies that I have a feminine gender identity, which I do not. As a lesbian, I have plenty of experience of being discriminated against for my refusal to conform to gender norms. I will continue to always uphold the principles of the Equality Act which ensures that all of us can expect equality and protection from discrimination on the nine protected characteristics. I have always and always will treat colleagues and patients with the utmost respect, regardless of their belief system. I will not shrink from expecting to receive the same respect myself."

Or define her identity around how males identify themselves. It positions men at the centre and women somewhere around them.

It’s mean for OP to exist in the world as biological woman (EQ10 definition) when there are poor, sad men in lippy who want OP to shut up and check her privilege.

I'm afraid it does. If you look up gender identity, gender etc on the websites that espouse such things you'll find definitions such as that by the World Health Organisation, Or the Australian Human Rights Commission, Or Stonewall:

"Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy".

"Gender Refers to the way in which a person identifies or expresses their masculine or feminine characteristics."

Gender identity refers to a person’s deeply felt, internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond to the person’s physiology or designated sex at birth.

Gender identity - Refers to a person’s deeply held internal and individual feeling of gender.

Cisgender - Someone whose gender is the same as the sex they were assigned at birth.

Cisgender: denoting or relating to a person whose gender identity corresponds with the sex registered for them at birth.

What does this actually mean?

This means gender is the social stereotypes expected of one's sex.

And cisgender is a person whose internal sense of self aligns with the stereotypes expected of one's sex / whose roles and behaviours fit tose stereotypically associated with their sex.

It's really pretty sexist to call a woman that or expect her to define her identity in based on the social stereotypes that cause us so much harm.

These ‘Trans Training Sessions’ are usually run by activist orgs and often (even before the SC court ruling) advise on workplace practices and HR policies that are incompatible with various bits of equality & safety in the workplace legislation.

your boss needs to stop swallowing all the guff that trans orgs put out.

OP, you go back to the Equality Act 2010, keep it simple and stick to the facts.

It’s harassment under the EA 2010 to create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for someone with a protected characteristic by engaging in unwanted conduct in relation to that protected characteristic.

The relevant protected characteristics here are sex and philosophical belief.

The protected characteristic of sex arises as they are asking you about your experience of having the protected characteristic of biological woman, which is humiliating (as you were singled out as biological woman and your protected characteristic was pointed out publicly and used as a training tool without your consent) and hostile, degrading and offensive (as it is being suggested that you enjoy privilege by virtue of having this protected characteristic, and furthermore that biological women are more privileged than biological men, which undermines the very nature of sex-based rights in law).

The protected characteristic of philosophical belief (specifically gender critical belief here, which is protected under the EA pursuant to the Forstater case) relates to the humiliating, degrading and offensive use of the term ‘cis’ to describe your protected characteristic of biological woman (for the reasons PPs have stated, and because it is a ideological term that non-believers are free to reject - it also falls under the sex protected characteristic as hostile, degrading and intimidating because it is often used as a pejorative term for the protected characteristic of biological women), and to the subsequent intimating, humiliating and hostile admonishment you received as a result of your (legally protected) gender critical views - that sex is immutable and that you don’t believe in gender identity ideology.

So well done to your employer, as they’ve managed to collect the whole set of harassment behaviours - perhaps Stonewall are giving out prizes this week or something.

Telling a woman she's mean to coerce her into compliance, how novel.

I don't think it could reasonably be considered wrong even without the ruling either in law or in their role.

How appalling to be pulled up when the only "inclusive terminology" you refused to use was that which applied to yourself!
The sheer hypocrisy of telling YOU how you have to self identify enrages me .
It appears to me that you have been perfectly accepting of the perceived gender identity of your colleague and as such have absolutely no case to answer here.
I agree with those who suggest you ask for this to be put in writing. If they say anything in the slightest way inaccurate then correct them in writing. If they accurately state what happened, then I think I'd be replying that my beliefs were upheld as lawful by the Forstater tribubal and that you do not expect to be challenged on them further, and if you are you will consider it harassment on the grounds of a lawful protected belief. Hopefully that will be the end of it and if not I'd advise them that they may be harassing and bullying you into a possible constructive dismissal scenario.
It is absolutely right that trans people are nor harassed or bullied in the workplace but it is also incumbent on your employer that they extend the same protection to you and your beliefs or face the potential legal consequences.

What do you mean by that? Is the ops self identity somehow mean?? (but male people’s self identity as female totally kind and inclusive?)

They suggest that 'trans' is the default and that there are sub-sets of sex. There is no such thing as a 'cis' woman, just women.