Pulled up at work for ‘trans views’

[wherearethemarsbars]

Recently, a colleague at my company has declared that they are ‘agender’ and asexual and has asked to be addressed as ‘they’. As a result, my company decided to arrange a trans training session where some trans people came in to talk to us all about gender and terminology etc etc.

During this session, I was asked to describe my experience of living as a ‘cis woman’. I said that I didn’t have any experience of living as a cis woman, only as a woman so I couldn’t comment. I was pressed further and didn’t say much, only that the term ‘cis woman’ doesn’t align with my personal beliefs of what a woman is, so therefore declined to comment any further.

A few days later, I was pulled up on this by management who said that my behaviour was not acceptable and that I should be making an effort to be inclusive to everyone. I’m a bit baffled. Can I get others’ thoughts on this topic?

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.

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.

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.

And?

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

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

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!

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

No need to be mean.

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.

Very succinctly put!

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.

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.

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?

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.

What was mean about it?

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?)

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

"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."