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?

By saying you don’t agree with being called cis, you could be accused of denying a trans person’s existence and experience.

At the same time, by labelling themselves as trans, trans people (with cis being the complimentary term used to distinguish between the two), without consent from those affected, could be said to be attempting to alter the identity and perceived experience of women.

No one, not either side, is winning in this scenario. Either way it plays out there is damage.

Erm.

No you couldn't.

Next.

Thank you OP, sincerely, for refusing to use that stupid made-up word cis-woman. I can’t understand why anyone’ is calling you ‘mean’. I find ‘cis-woman’ deeply and intentionally offensive.

How would OP be denying a trans person’s anything?

She said she’s not ‘cis’, not that the trans person wasn’t trans!

There’s a difference between saying “I’m not a Christian” and saying “well, your god doesn’t exist and your religion is made-up rubbish”.

Yeah, the thing is, they don't. The ones with vulvas in their underwear are consistently treated worse than the ones with penises in their underwear.

How does stopping us from labelling those two groups effectively help the ones with vulvas in their underwear fight against this discrimination?

I wouldn’t have a clue what to say either

If everyone is allowed to identify as they wish based on their own lived experience, it's absolutely fine to refuse to be called cos and reject offensive stereotyping.

Otherwise we aren't being treated equally.

Cos it's written into law that you get protections from discrimination based on sex, because people get discriminated against due to....

(Checks notes as this is obviously rocket science)

...SEX DISCRIMINATION!

I don’t think you’ve done anything wrong, I don’t mind someone asking me to refer to them as her/him/they etc. but it’s such a double standard to say “you must identify me as x and yourself as y (cis)”, for me I’m a woman and it’s how I’ve always been since birth (with all the boring generic woman insides 😂) and that’s that I don’t feel the need (or desire) to refer to myself as anything else and wouldn’t appreciate anyone else identifying me as anything other than a woman…

I've not had time to RTFT, OP, but:

Your beliefs could be described as 'gender critical'. They are protected in law, and your employers cannot discriminate against you for holding or expressing them.

There are several very good lawyers with expertise in this area who I'm sure would be happy to help out should you need it.

More power to your elbow - stand firm! Plenty of us are right behind you.

Document everything - do try to get them to put in writing as much as possible. If not, take contemporaneous notes.

No, I’ve never asked that question. I’m not sure how I honestly could, although I have midwife friends who have had to support trans men (no gender surgery) in giving birth, and then been asked to refer to them as dad. That’s a whole other debate in itself I suppose.

On a separate note, my partner (woman) works for the NHS. I had a baby last year via sperm donor and my partner took parental leave. Partner had to fill out numerous forms regarding her ‘paternity leave’, a term that she challenged with her organisation but nothing changed.

There are lots of very well-informed women on this thread who have made excellent suggestions on how to respond. I absolutely agree this should all be put in writing so there can be no question what you were saying and what their response was. I'd also want to keep a copy of the email trail away - just in case it all blows up and those pesky work servers lose the evidence. Paranoid? Yes. But we've seen it happen, time and time again. Funnily enough, only to women. Employers always seem to know who women are when they don't want to follow the law....

Anyway, I just wanted to applaud you OP. It's really difficult to stand up for views that keep being described as bigoted, when they're just factual reality. It's so important for all of us that women refuse to be defined in relation to their proximity to men and that our language and voices aren't eroded.

I see you work in a private healthcare setting, so I think it's even MORE important to have clarity in any conversations about the sexes.

Thank you for being brave enough to put yourself in the firing line. I hope things don't become too uncomfortable for you at your workplace.

I see where you’re trying to go with this argument but I don’t feel I can relate, because to me, there is no complimentary distinguishing factor between trans and ‘cis’- one is a woman and one feels that they are a woman (however strongly) but isn’t, wasn’t and will never be. I honestly think that’s fine to say and doesn’t deny a trans person of their existence. Trans people have very real experiences and their lives and views absolutely matter. But it doesn’t change reality

Only one of those two groups is demanding that others validate their existence perception of themselves though.

See, I don't think the OP has to do any explaining.

And also - little bugbear of mine - talking about someone in the third person is not addressing them. When you address someone, you use their name, or their title, or an honorific, or just "you".
They have no right to tell you to use wrong-sex third person pronouns when you are talking about them and it is not a matter of respect, it's a demand for compliance.

No need for OP to overreact. She's not said anything that could lawfully lead to her dismissal, and if it leads to her being treated unfavourably then she will have grounds for a grievance. The tide is turning fast and I think the OP has been caught up in a bit of a last hurrah by employers who haven't realised and are late to the party.

By saying you don’t agree with being called cis, you could be accused of denying a trans person’s existence and experience

Huh?!?

This or the rest of your post doesn’t make sense, by not using ‘cis’ you are not denying anyone’s existence and experience, they are trans women and we (I) am a woman, how is calling myself a woman denying a trans woman’s experience / existence, I completely recognise that trans women exist, I don’t need to refer to myself as a ‘cis woman ‘ in order to validate them

On a separate note, my partner (woman) works for the NHS. I had a baby last year via sperm donor and my partner took parental leave. Partner had to fill out numerous forms regarding her ‘paternity leave’, a term that she challenged with her organisation but nothing changed.

So they are a bunch of hypocritical virtual signalers. They are only selectively inclusive.

I think what you said was valid. Why do you have to ascribe to their values and call them ‘they’ whilst you’re not allowed to object to being called a ‘cis woman’? Double standards 🙄

There’s no such thing as a cis woman. You’re either a man or a woman.

So you have to be completely inclusive of the trans person and how they'd like to be referred to, but nobody has to give a shiny shit about how you'd like to be referred to?

Sounds fair.

OP I think you do have to respond by email outlining what happened and what was said to you afterwards. Otherwise being cynical, this could be used against you in the future if there are any complaints against you, to show that you have “form” on this matter. If you let it go it could look as if you accepted this rebuke as you didn’t challenge it at the time. It does need to be challenged. I would want to know whether this matter was treated as either an informal or a formal reprimand. They would have to answer that question in writing as it is a reasonable request.

If a transperson’s existence is dependent on the beliefs of others it’s all getting too complex for me - I only exist provided I can call other people what I like and insist that they talk about me the way I choose . but if I refuse to call others what they like then I don’t vanish out of existence although I should shut up and pretend I’m not there ?

and I thought “I think therefore I am “ was the end of it

I'd say your manager needs training and a reminder that gender critcal beliefs are protected under the Equality Act. I'm really impressed how you handled yourself during the training, OP; well done.