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?

They definitely did as the word woman is regularly used in long standing legislation.

This is true. I will give some thought to refining my analogy!

Sorry if this has already been suggested but I would urgently write down exactly what they said and what you said in writing so you've got your own record of events, in a manner you could share with others if needed.

It might not be what you said was accurately recorded and something very vague was passed to management. This would be the first thing I would be looking to clear up.

But I would be really careful about how to proceed as whether you take further action or not it could come back to bite you. I would be looking to get some decent legal or union advice asap.

I can definitely understand why some people feel that way as in some work settings there are some pretty aggressive policies and it definitely can feel an bit oppressive.
For me personally I have no issue the language someone prefers to refer to them as well as to directly address them. I just feel it’s a reasonable expectation that courtesy and attempt to help others feel included is extended to everyone. If you or anyone else doesn’t feel comfortable using the pronouns requested by others due to their gender critical views that’s also a perfectly reasonable position. You are also correct OP doesn’t have to provide an explanation but if I were going to that would be my reasoning on why being asked to refer to myself as a Cis woman doesn’t feel like a small, neutral act of support at all. I think a lot of trans women genuinely won’t see the issue. Their gender identity is so critical to their sense of self that they likely struggle with the idea it’s something many women want to reject.

They have no right to “pull you up” on your views, we are allowed to not believe in religion and belief systems. What you do next depends on your employment situation, how much you love your job, how much you need this particular job, how argumentative and confrontational you are. I’d join the Free Speech Union, tonight if possible. Arm yourself with the legal arguments, in case work decide to take it further. They can’t do anything about you not using the requested cult language. But they might be deluded enough to try so you need to be ready for your counter argument. You can’t harass or discriminate against a trans or non binary person but you also can’t be compelled to go along with it unquestioning. Make sure you can recite the Maya Forstater case and the Equality Act. I’d wait and see what they do next. But if they try to enforce it, I’d start with a politely worded letter.

But isn;t this in part connected to your professional integrity? If you can’t be allowed to be true to your values, if you are required to pretend and say yes when you know something is wrong… how can patients trust you and your fellow professionals. This is something that has deeply perplexed me about the BMA and the NHS’s wholesale refusal to follow the science. It has decimated my trust in people that I have always assumed were at the highest standard of education, professional standard and integrity.

Also, what an bonkers and personal question to ask someone's "experience of being a "cis" women"...what are you supposed to say:

• born female in 1980
• started periods in 1992
• fell pregnant in 2002
• gave birth in 2003
• continued to use the same pronouns ?!
• still female in 2025

Or are those not so called cis women experienced because they apply to "transmen". Except the last two? Idk.

What I meant is this: this thread is about how management are treating the OP and how she should respond.

She has already told them why she didn't give her experience of living as a c^s woman" at the training session. Her stance is valid, her beliefs are protected and she doesn't need to make excuses or give explanations.
The behaviour of management is getting close to harassment or creating a hostile environment for the OP - IMO, IANAL - it certainly is not reasonable or inclusive to the OP, not equal or fair treatment. The OP's next step should be to protect herself and make it clear to management that they can't treat her like that. Mollifying the person X is not her problem.

Edited for clarity and formatting

I think the idea of it is to contrast anything favourable a woman discloses about her experience with the unfortunate TW who doesn't have 'cis privelege'; and take anything negative she says and say that TW experience this too (only worse) so therefore we are all in it together. It's a loaded question designed to enable a 'learning point' to be made. The learning point being "TW are women just like you, only particularly marginalised." It doesn't matter how the woman answers, the response from the trainer is preplanned to make that point.

On another thread, a poster suggested OP should respond, "it is inappropriate for you to assume I am cis gender or to discuss my gender in any way, except if it has specific bearing on my work duties".

From a legal perspective, the courts have made it clear that gender critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act. It may therefore be unlawful harassment to insist OP accepts the "cis woman" label or uses it. If she faces any disciplinary action or other disadvantage due to this, it would be unlawful discrimination.

It is nearly 4 years since the EAT decided that GC beliefs are protected (Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe), added to which we now have the Supreme Court judgement that "woman" in the Equality Act means a biological woman (which in turn means what we think it means, not what trans activists claim it means). NHS management really should have got the memo by now.

@5128gap - agree, the question is loaded to make the TW point. Fury at OP's reply is because she would not allow the point to be made. She subverted the training by implying/making clear that TWs cannot in anyway relate or be compared to women. Trainer must have frothed at the mouth. Quite funny 😂except for the outcome for OP from her management.

I hate the term cis. I wonder if it’s time to refer to ourselves as ‘biological women’ which is an indisputable fact. I’d prefer woman but for arguments sake, I identify as and am factually a biological woman?
anyone who argues can be referred the SC verdict.

The problem with that is that it is still suggesting there might be some other type of women. Which, of course, there isn't.

Cisoleth acts as a marker of gender ideology and capture.

'Thats a rather loaded question. What makes you think I identify with the term cis? I have no interest in getting involved with a gender ideology debate thanks. In future I'd advise you don't raise this issue wity me. It's not appropriate for the workplace'.

In anti racism training do you deny you have a skin colour when they ask for your experiences too and say "I'm only a woman not a white/black/mixed race woman"?

Do you honestly think it would be acceptable to put a black person on the spot in an anti-racism training and pressure them to describe what it’s like to be black so their white colleagues can understand black people better?

Skin colour, like sex, is an objective fact. The OP is asserting that she is a woman, not denying she is a woman.
She denies having a c*sgender identity and she has told them in effect that she doesn't believe in GII.

What point did you think you were making?

It's a fact that the OP isn't transgender too, which is what the word Cis means. It's not an identity, just a fact of life.

i wouldn’t have thought so because humans objectively have different skin colour saying my skin is brown is just an objective fact. It does not require a subscription to an ideology.

Having to qualify yourself as a woman is predicated on gender ideology. If you don’t subscribe to gender ideology then saying you’re a woman is the only objective statement you can make. Cis is the language of gender ideology, woman is the language of science.

No it doesn't. Cis means you have a gender identity that aligns with your sex. The op does not have a gender identity.

I'm not going to reiterate the explanations from earlier, but I bet even you don't believe that that is the meaning of cis. And even if "non-trans" was all it meant, it is still the language of GII. To which the OP does not subscribe.

The very concept of cisgender meaning non-trans is BS anyway.

Being cisgender implies two things:

1. that one has a gender,
2. that this gender aligns with their sex.

Well, what about agender people? They don't have a gender.
What about non-binary people? They have a gender that doesn't align on either sex.

So yeah, I would go with: "You don't know that I'm cis." In a perfect world, that would make them realise they've stepped into a minefield.

So the op is agender or non binary?

With skin colour though, there are many.

There is only one type of woman so cis is superfluous. Just woman is enough.

By adding 'cis' you're implying that there are different types of woman, there aren't. Transwomen are men. @Micaela64