I may have to defend my GC position

[JellySlice]

I'm an adult involved with young people. I do not intend to use the situation I am likely to be in as a proselytising platform, but I will not stay silent if anti-GC beliefs or practices are promoted.

I'm the worst speaker. I get tangled up and over-passionate, and all the data and source citations go right out of my head.

I think I need a few sheets of clear notes, with citations, that I can refer to at need and also hand to people assuming TWAWetc and affirmation.

Particularly important, I think, are:
Safeguarding children
Debunking the suicide myths
Tavistock/NHS Centre of Excellence guidance
The risks behind affirmation and desistance rates without affirmation

Help, please!

“I don’t share the trainer’s opinion on that”
“I have concerns about he impact of that proposal on safeguarding”

"I think gender identity is your personality. I think it's sexist and regressive to link personality differences to your sex."

"I agree with many people that today's transgender ideology is sexist and homophobic."

I've just learned that one of the people delivering the training is from Stonewall.

Shit.

Always fight for what you are for, not what you are against.
Brilliant advice.
I'd stick to facts, may be have a couple of examples to hand. Laurel Hubbard is a good one. Or Lisa Hauxwell.

Also...maybe the best you cam hope for is to plant a seed rather than "win" the argument. So don't get too disheartened if you don't feel people got what you were saying. They will go away and think about it, maybe do their own reading. That's why so many people end up here. Nothing inspires others to research more than hearing a reasonable person be called a bigot.

And the trainer is themselves trans.

JellySlice
Just stay calm and explain that you disagree. The trainer isn't likely to go postal, and if they do all the delegates will be shocked.
The other tactic, which I don't really advocate because it feels less honest, is just to ask questions.
"So are you saying someone who occasionally crossdresses is trans?"
"Are you saying that all trans women are women?"
"Ok so are you saying a man who occasionally crossdresses is a woman in your eyes?"
"Are you saying that he should always be treated as a woman or only when he is dressed like a woman?"
That kind of thing. Again you have to be super calm, and just keep clarifying everything. It has to be the kind of question that encourages committal in their answer. You'd have to do this from the perspective of someone who knew nothing about the subject so if you're GC at work it isn't the right option. Also if you're naturally shy then blurting out a load of questions won't seem natural.
Finally, just because the trainer is trans and from stonewall, doesn't mean they'll be any more highbrow than JB. It's just a person, affiliated with and paid by a lobby group, not a brain surgeon or rocket scientist. They'll follow a training programme, they'll take questions, your employer will tick a box, that's it.
Just my 2p. Good luck.

Are you going to the session?

Yeah I'd ask naive questions that expose the lack of logic.

As flying says, clever questions work better in theory than in practice. The OP has said she isn’t a great speaker. I wouldn’t take that tack OP

In a work environment I would avoid being too confrontational. I would try and follow what they are saying and highlight logical conclusions and question if you have understood correctly. Let the audience form their own opinions, but ensure they truly understand what they are being told. Maybe sow a few seeds of doubt by referring to "theory, "your definition of a woman" etc. to try to emphasise what isn't facts.

"So transwomen are women, as you say being a woman refers to a gender identity not a sex class. Where does that leave biological women who don't have a feminine identity? Are we saying sex based provisions and protections no longer apply to them? "

"In your terminology is there any word we can use to describe people with the female reproductive role?"

Maybe misunderstand a few points to ask sensible questions that they will have to rebuke.

"How can young people be encouraged to be their authentic selves in the body they have without changing it?"
" Shouldn't we encourage young people to be tolerant of any form gender expression, without linking it to biological sex? Then they'd be less appetite to transition "
" why would any facilities be split by gender expression not sex? Wait... you say they should be split by gender identity not even expression, so just how someone feels, nothing outwardly discernable? How does that work? What's the point in segregation?"

There are 9 protected characteristics by the 2010 Equality Act, this legislation informs all diversity, equality and inclusion policies.
These are:
Age
Disability
Gender reassignment
Marriage & civil partnership
Pregnancy & Maternity
Race
Religion or belief
Sex
Sexual orientation

Gender and Gender Identity are not protected characteristics.

Last year many local authorities, public services including schools etc , charities and businesses were found to be misquoting and possibly misapplying the law. When alerted, they have corrected the policies

WPUK
'Grassroots women’s pressure forces local authorities to comply with the law over sex and gender'
"Local councils around Britain have been forced to change legally inaccurate equalities information on their websites by women’s rights campaigners. Many authorities have been found to be in breach of the Equalities Act by stating that “gender” is a protected characteristic, as opposed to “sex,” and some authorities have listed the two terms interchangeably, which they have sought to rectify due to sustained campaigning." (continues)
womansplaceuk.org/grassroots-womens-pressure-forces-local-authorities-to-comply-with-the-law-over-sex-and-gender/

In July 2018 the government made a significant announcement about the Equality Act.

James Kirkup,
"Some facts about the events that preceded the Government statement here that the coming consultation on the Gender Recognition Act will be narrowly drawn and not affect the Equality Act’s single sex exemptions.
I offer these facts because some are claiming “there was never any question of removing/amending EA exceptions.” Those claims are either mistaken or dishonest.

August 2015
Stonewall submission to the Women & Equalities Select Committee says MPs should amend the EA to
“remove exemptions, such as access to single-sex spaces”

Jan 2016
Women & Equalities Committee says EA should be amended so that

“occupational requirements provision and / or the single-sex / separate services provision shall not apply”.

July 2016
Govt response to W&E Committee says: “we agree with the principle of this recommendation” on EA exemptions and seeks evidence for “future policy discussions”

July 2017
Govt promises GRA reform “ as part of a broad consultation of the legal system that underpins gender transition.”

July 2017
Stonewall commits to “advocate for the removal” of EA provisions allowing sex-based discrimination.

June 2018
Govt says:

“We are clear that we have no intention of amending the Equality Act 2010, the legislation that allows for single sex spaces.”

In sum: MPs and others told govt to amend/remove Equality Act single-sex exemptions. Govt considered doing so. Then govt ruled it out. / ends"

(thread contains links to the relevent documents)
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1004635839480164352.html?refreshed=yes

I am a lawyer and I help people negotiate through disputes. I can ask searching questions on behalf of Clients using all of the “clever clever“ techniques outlined above, but I cannot do it when it is just for myself and it is to do with a subject I feel passionately about.
Maybe I’ve misunderstood the original poster but when she talked about getting tangled up that made me think it would be better for her to stick with a plain statement of her Position expressed in a single sentence. Just my thoughts for what it’s worth .