Pulled up at work for ‘trans views’

I agree with asking for it in writing but not so explicitly - email a follow up and say hi x, the other day you thought my views re not identifying as cis were not inclusive. I’ve been a bit upset by this, as an out lesbian I’ve always modelled inclusivity at work and in my personal life. Can you explain more about how my views aren’t inclusive, and about how your approach to this is inclusive of people like me who’ve found being female intrinsic to being a woman?

Aside from the "cis" aspect (which is offensive), I find the question generally absolutely offensive and irrelevant. I think I would have just said, I don't know, I am just a woman and don't know any different.

Right? It is genuinely infuriating how women are just ignored and pulled up asserting their own boundaries. OP’s colleague is able to identify how he likes but she is reprimanded when she does the same.

It’s hard to ignore how a man and a woman have been treated so differently in this situation.

Very succinctly put!

I personally have no problem with the term cis-woman but, provided you were respectful as you seem to have been based on what you've written, then I don't see why they can pull you up for this. You are entitled to your own views just as anyone else is. You were asked for your experience and you answered. I do really think that part of the issue with such contentious topics is that people aren't allowed to express opposing views without being shouted down. There's nothing wrong with a respectful exchange of opposing opinions.

No need to be mean.

Yes, I often think that. How many employers offer training to tell staff how to support colleague X who has mental health issues / menopause / learning difficulties / caring for family members with disabilities?!

I reckon Stonewall played an absolute blinder by setting themselves up as experts in the field, rather than continuing as a lobby group. I think that's how they managed to keep the trans issue so high profile

But the wheels are about to come off, when employers / public institutions realise that it's going to cost them ££ to reverse the measures they took when following Stonewall law, fighting the Sandie Peggie case etc

Common sense puts them in the wrong! If I were pressed in a public forum to say what football team I supported and declined to answer I wouldn't expect to be pulled up later for not giving the acceptable response. If anyone had asked me about 'cis' women I would have to seek clarification!

I was thinking that, if ever I'm in this situation, I'd keep asking questions like that. 'I don't know what cis means'.
'Not trans'
'Ok, but what does being trans mean?'
'Blah blah gender identity blah blah'
'But what's a gender identity and how do I know if I have one? etc etc

And?

It's STILL not the job of women to validate and include because we are being emotionally blackmailed into including them.

Good luck, OP - your response in the training session was brilliant. Another vote here for getting the management to commit their concerns to writing/for making a contemporaneous note for yourself while it's fresh in your mind.

Yes, it does. Otherwise TAs wouldn't be so determined to force the label c*s on women. It implies that men who claim to be women and women share a gender identity, and that therefore MCW are a type of woman. They are men.

I think if someone can choose how they are referred to then everyone can....and that includes defining how they refuse to be referred to....

No, I disagree. The person X at work, in choosing how other people refer to him/her, is attempting to coerce their speech. Whereas referring to the OP using she/her is just talking normally.
And calling the OP a cs woman is imputing to her beliefs that she does not hold. That is not the same as just describing her as "a woman who isn't trans", even though that description is ridiculous in a different way - she's also "a woman who is not Beyonce", or any number of things. Rejecting the label cs (ie, rejecting the assertion that you have a feminine gender identity) is not equivalent to rejecting the label man, or woman, or employee, if that is in fact what you are.

Sadly my employer (large charity) has doubled down on it too since the SC ruling. Madness.

What does it mean then?

what does being transgender or cis gender mean ?

what the fuck is gender ?

no it doesn't imply that.

There was an interview on R4 last week re trans people being in their own rooms in hospital following the ruling. The interviewee was basically saying being in a side ward would make them feel excluded. And I thought, what about all those people with physical disabilities, or learning difficulties, who really cannot access services, or understand what’s happening to them. They are excluded. And is being in a separate room in an NHS hospital really a bad thing!

It's completely reasonable to refuse. They can't force the term cis woman on you. Their own definition of a ciswoman is a woman who identified with her sex, where "identified" is cashed out in terms of social and cultural identity.

Now I love being a woman. But I don't identify with every aspect of the way out society understands womanhood - I don't think any woman does. And thank goodness for that, or we wouldn't have the conceptual resources to understand and push back against sex based oppression.

If I were you, I would keep the conversation personal to me. I wouldn't even mention my views on trans and what woman means, I'd explain that womanhood in our society is sexualised and oppressed category. By identifying with the social concept of a woman, I'd be identifying myself as someone who deserves to be oppressed, sexually abused by men, take responsibility for domestic chores, have specific temperaments, and so on. Since I don't identify with these things, but do identify with being a biological woman (in the sex sense) then it's more appropriate for me to refer to myself as a woman than as a cis woman.

So if cis means not trans

what does trans mean ?

because I don’t know what I am

And Man, just means an adult who is biologically male. That's all. So calling transwomen men is also correct and valid.

I don't see what you did wrong. If you have to refer to your colleague in the way they'd like to be referred, it's just as important that you get the same courtesy. You are a woman. Not a "cis woman". Same as me. I don't want to be a subcategory of woman. I. Am. A. Woman.

This is correct. They can offer single sex meetings (i.e. women only) or they can be open to all. If they have 25 or more members, catering for women and trans women may be unlawful. They may be able to justify it as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, but it may be a breach of the Equality Act.

Whether they "recognise" this ruling or not is irrelevant. It applies to them. You don't get to ignore the law just because you disagree with it.

Flip reverse it and report to HR that they have made you feel anxious and stressed.

As I understand the Supreme Court judgement, organisations like lesbian groups don't require to offer single sex meetings. But if they choose to do so, then single sex = female only

So, if your group allows TW to attend, then it's no longer single sex. It's mixed sex. And they're allowed to do that

Ultimately, I guess it comes down to economics. If the group loses members and wants to remain viable, then they'll need to exclude males

Exactly. Women have been debating this issue at some length for a decade. The GI lobby opted not to join that conversation. Their response was #NoDebate, TERF blocker, ‘reframe your trauma’ and ‘enjoy your erasure’.

Now the SC judgement has gone against them suddenly they want a discussion?

Sorry, dudes. That ship has sailed. Not. Women’s. Problem.

Enjoying your erasure doesn’t feel so good when the boot’s on the other foot, does it?