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?

The “call me dad” issue is interesting. I thought the Freddie McConnell case had been settled by a judge denying FM the right to be labelled father on birth certificates because childrens rights to know their parentage trumps FMs belief that gestating and birthing a child is the same as impregnating an egg with your sperm.

If OP is up for it, she should apologise if anyone was excluded by her choice of language and ask what the correct term to use if one is a woman for the purposes of the Equality Act who doesn’t feel any alignment to a particular gender. Then she can be “agender” too - alongside most of the other women in the world I expect.

Correct May brought it in. She was a poor PM. Starmer even worse of course, for years didn’t even know what a woman was… something the average two year old knows. Yet people still vote for him… no wonder the country is going down the pan when two years olds know more than our elected representatives

I suppose there's a difference between what's on the birth certificates and what you teach your kids to call you. If Freddie's kids call their mother mum, mama or mam I'd be extremely surprised notwithstanding what's on their birth certificates.

For those who don't understand the problem with requiring women to accept "cis" being applied to them, it is akin to being asked at a session on Catholicism (run by your workplace, no less) to give your experience of living as a Pagan.

You say, "but I'm not a pagan. I'm Protestant / Muslim / an Atheist," and everyone treats you as being difficult and unreasonable because eyeroll "it just means 'not Christian' don't make such a fuss!".

Well yes, maybe to Christians. But it's mildly insulting and it presupposes that Christianity is the default and must be the framework around which we all define ourselves. I am not one. So I decline to be defined by your beliefs and not my own.

And that's the end of the matter.

Cis is a slur for many, and disliked by lots of women. It is not a neutral term! They could have used other neutral language, eg “Tell us about your experience as a woman who is not trans”. But, no, they tried to force the language of gender ideology on you, and then criticised you when you didn’t join in. That’s not on. You did nothing wrong.

It’s like having someone in to talk about their religion, and then saying, “Mary, tell us about your experience as an infidel”. Loaded and not neutral - and not necessary.

The minute you say you're agender, you're under the 'woke cloak' and their attitude to you changes... I've played this game at work to amuse myself and highlight the absurdity of it all....

Snap!

In what way were “they” right?

There are larks to be had if you say you don’t have a gender identity so are agender and therefore reject cis, but you recognise biology so you are just woman.

Also that as a nurse in a senior position, I should be setting an example for junior colleagues 🤷‍♀️

Smile enigmatically and say "Oh, but I am!" 😉

You can, if you wished to prolong the larks, say that as you are agender, you would be considered under the trans umbrella, so if they insist on giving you a gender identity label, you will accept being called a trans woman.

@wherearethemarsbars just to explain a point you made.

Paternity leave and pay are statutory entitlements. The legislation uses the term “paternity” because that was what was used in the Employment Act 2002. Subsequent amendments have changed eligibility but the name remains.

HR therefore retain “paternity” in their policies because they include the statutory requirement as the baseline.

Doesn't that apply to all minorities, the majority have to walk on eggshells to not 'offend' them whereas they can be as offensive as they wish!

Up until this quote reading the thread gave me the picture of someone trying to do their job whilst ignoring gender politics, and being bullied by an employer. But now I think that you actually relish the fight. This is of course what your employer wants from you when they say that as a Senior you should be a role model, it's just that they have a political agenda that they aren't entitled to hold.

Ah, well that’s interesting. I wonder if this will change at any point, I think it should really

Being asexual isn’t any more a protected characteristic than being voluntarily celibate, highly sexed or an incel. If this person has declared themselves it at work then they just like the attention. “Morning everyone, by the way it’s important you know I’m not interested in sex” 🙄

I hope your place of work didn’t put any importance on that!

Yes, I suppose I do relish the fight in a way. But not because I want to be confrontational or cause a stir at work (or anywhere) for the sake of it, I just truly don’t believe that I should be made to adhere to views that I don’t believe in. It’s a tricky balance I feel, but this is a topic I feel strongly about and I just can’t compromise

That’s so odd of them. You are expected to use the language of their beliefs, not only about themselves, but when referring to yourself as well. Gender is an abstract noun.

Forcing language on someone (especially a word as loaded as 'cis') is the opposite of inclusive.

You sounded perfectly reasonable - you don't identify as a 'cis' woman so how can you speak as one. (this is true whether you agree with the whole concept or not)

It's almost as though our legislators knows exactly what a man is and what a woman is when the chips are down.

Wrong thread, sorry. No idea how to delete the pic!

For those who don't understand the problem with requiring women to accept "cis" being applied to them, it is akin to being asked at a session on Catholicism (run by your workplace, no less) to give your experience of living as a Pagan.

It's significantly worse than that.

If a "cis woman" was a woman who says she's a woman and a "trans woman" was a woman who says she's a man, then that analogy would work.

You'd just be disapproving of a term for "not trans".

The real problem is that they use "cis" and "trans" to break down "women" into the female ones and male ones. So by using it you're conceding the definition of "woman" itself.

Agreed and a good idea.

You did nothing wrong.

Well good for you! I don't actually share your views, nor disagree with them. Your employer has appointed you to a position where they expect you to be role model, they can't then require you to espouse illegal views.

(FWIW I think that the 0.3% of the population who are trans should be left to get on with life however they want, but they also shouldn't dictate how the 99.7% of us live our lives either).