Please help me with my complaint about inclusion trainer using the word cos

[Rainbowshine]

I attended some compulsory training on trans inclusion today. The trainer repeatedly used the word cis. I dislike the word and find it offensive. I need to feedback on the training to the Head of Diversity (I work in HR so it’s not just general feedback but could influence us using the trainer again for a huge amount of diversity training). Please can you wonderfully articulate people help me with composing this feedback? Thanks!

There are some words which carry with them baggage and cause offence. I would have expected discussion of these in context but not the use of them by trainers. These include “examples”. I found it uncomfortable to be made to sit through this and it made it harder to engage with the subject.

You could say you felt the lecture excluded and attempted to marginalise people who are not transgender, though repeated use of offensive and insulting language directed towards you.

Training should be delivered showing due respect to all participants. Being a trainer is a position of power and the use of language which many will see as offensive should be avoided. It is bad training.

The Equal Treatment Bench book has been revised to acknowledge this in court cases.

^The term ‘cisgender’ or ‘cis’ is sometimes used to describe people whose gender identity corresponds to the sex assigned to them at birth. Here again, the terminology may or may not be appropriate depending on how the personperson who is the object of the description wishes to be referred to, especially if it is a term they have not encountered or have not had explained to them. Some
people feel strongly that they do not wish to be described as ‘cisgender’ or ‘cis’^
‘Cisgender’ has its origin in the Latin prefix ‘cis’ which means ‘on this side of’ and the term is drawn from the common usage of cis- and trans- instereochemistry to refer to otherwise identical chemicals, ie isomers, which have mirror image structures (with components on one side rather than the other but chemically the same). Thus, where the term is acceptable, a ciswoman would be someone whose self-identified gender is on the same ‘side’ as her gender assigned by doctors at birth based on physical characteristics

The language used is integral to a particular set of philosophical beliefs and, as with all philosophical beliefs, some people will not share them and will not necessarily feel it is appropriate to discuss their beliefs during a mandatory training session.

The word "cis" describes people who identify with the gender usually associated with their biological sex.

The courts have recognised in Forstater v CGD Europe that individuals who hold gender critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act, just like people who do not believe in gender identity. People who are gender critical do not believe they have a gender identity, and so do not use the word "cis" about themselves. Since their right to believe that they do not have a gender identity is protected, it is offensive to refer to gender critical people as "cis" against their wishes, or to use the word "cis" about a group of individuals which may include gender critical people, whether or not they have stated that they hold those beliefs.

Use of the word "cis" to label another person can also be offensive or distressing to someone who does believe in gender identity if the person referred to as "cis" identifies as trans but has not yet come out. Pressurising individuals to disclose their gender identity (e.g. by assuming they are cis unless they state publicly they are trans) goes against the Yogjakarta Principles on human rights around sexual orientation and gender identity, which respect the individual's right to privacy around their identity.

For these reasons, the word "cis" should not be used collectively to mean "not trans", and should not be used about an individual unless that person chooses to use it about themselves.

Thank you for the replies and I can compose something that is reasoned and professional from the suggestions.

To be fair other than that the trainer did highlight that some practices were good for all colleagues and some were more specific towards trans identifying people and employers needed to be mindful of supporting all “groups” not just this one. He said pronouns should not be compulsory as not everyone wants to declare them. So I can at least say that part was ok.

Thanks again for the help.

This sounds like a trainer who is reasonable and doesn’t want to force belief in anyone. It might be that, ‘Session might be better if word “cis” is contextualised as a belief”’ is the way to go.

Not a good idea.

What exactly are you trying to achieve?

You have said yourself that the trainer gave a balanced and factual training and encouraged towards all. Sound to me that this is the way it should be.

Describing someone as ''cis-gender'' is not an offensive word. It is commonly used.

If you don't like the term nobody is forcing you to use it in the workplace, just like no one is forcing you to use pronouns. But I would assume that a specialist trainer in that field would make references to it.

I am a senior manager and you came to me with this ''complaint'' I would have concerns about you, not the trainer. Because I would ask myself what point you are trying to make and what you are hoping to achieve beyond wasting my time.

This should read ''encouraged tolerance towards all groups''

That's a great, clear answer

Imnobody is that big paragraph at the bottom quoted from the Equal Treatment Bench Book? Do they really think that doctors are in the business of ‘assigning gender’ to babies at birth (as opposed to confirming which sex they appear to be)?

Describing someone as ''cis-gender'' is not an offensive word. It is commonly used.

It is offensive for those of us that do not subscribe to the ideology.

Why is that you get to infer that everyone that isn't outwardly 'trans' is somehow 'cis-gender'?

whitehorsegirl the point being made would be the "point she was trying to make". If you were my manager and refused to even attempt to understand my point I would be very concerned about my working environment.

You do not have to agree that "cis" is offensive. If your employee tells you that it is, you at the very least need to listen.

I find "cis" very offensive. I do not identify with the gender woman. I do not identify with the employment discrimination I've experienced. Or the rape or sexual assaults. I have no gender identity, do not believe in souls, I am fully an atheist. We really don't all have to have the same beliefs in the UK.

There's no hidden agenda for you to weed out. My view is as valid as anyone else's. Furthermore it is one held by many people including plenty of trans people.

Describing someone as ''cis-gender'' is not an offensive word. It is commonly used.

Surely it's up to the person being described whether they feel it is offensive. If someone called me a cis-woman I'd be pretty hacked off. You don't get to decide what I am.

This is the case with all words, is it not - we don't use offensive words to describe people's race, sex, age, disability or anything else, and whether or not a word is offensive is up to the person the word is aimed at. If I say that in my opinion "cunt", "old hag", "bitch", "n*", "boomer" or whatever are fine and I'm going to use them to describe you, would you think that's ok?

From Inclusive Employers which my work are signed up to and I need to challenge (see image). I disagree. Being called cis means I subscribe to gender identity ideology and the belief that sex is not immutable and is assigned at birth as opposed to observed. Andrew Doyle likened it to a person who has a religious belief insisting that an aethiest has a soul.

‘Describing someone as ''cis-gender'' is not an offensive word. It is commonly used.’

Loads of words were once commonly used.

I think some responses here are thinking I’m raising a grievance about it or something which is not the situation at all.

Just to be clear that the situation is that I need to feedback about a potential supplier, so it’s not a “complaint” specifically about the word cis.

So it will be part of the feedback but not my only focus. There were some other aspects around their presentation style and organisational skills in setting up the session that could be better too.

Thanks again for the suggestions and thoughts about this.

Cis gender is still uncommon although we are all becoming more and more aware of it. It assumes gender ideology as the benchmark from which all terms flow from.

I'm offended by it as one it assumes that gender ideology is both factual and accepted (or should be) by all. I'm offended by it it's meaning, how does someone else know how I feel about myself inside? If I subscribe to and define myself by gender stereotypes?

It is a word associated with/stemming from a set of beliefs. No one is compelled to hold these beliefs and, as per Forstater, not holding them is protected.
The word 'cis' could/should be contextualised as being part of this set of beliefs, rather than used casually.

I should hope that you, as a senior manager, are up on both your equality law and your understanding of the different ways language is used.

I came on to say exactly this, DameHelena
Using ‘cis’ indicates a specific position regarding gender ideology which places “cis” women as a subset of our sex.
We are not.

Yes, I agree completely.

Describing someone as ''cis-gender'' is not an offensive word. It is commonly used.

You don't have the right to tell me what I permitted to find offensive. I only hope that as a senior manager you are able to observe equality law (might be an idea to acquaint yourself with it) and control your irritation with staff who might reasonably expect you to respect their rights.

”Man” is commonly used and yet some men are offended and want to be called something else.

well said Funny Talks

Would you do the same if a black or asian member of staff came and complained about a trainer talking about "non-white" staff? If you're using cis just to mean "non-trans", it's offensive in the same way as "non-white", or when the Greens called us "non-men", in that you're defining us by what we lack rather than what we are. It's othering.