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?

This!! All day long

This has been covered (multiple times). She doesn't ascribe to gender beliefs and as such does not self identify as having any kind of gender.

Remember, gender is all about self identifying. No one can identify for her.

No. In order to be agender or non-binary you need to believe that gender identity is a thing and that you either swing between them or don't feel any of them fit you.

I, and as far as I'm aware, the op, do not have a gender identity so therefore cannot be agender or non-binary.

There’s a difference between facts and beliefs surely? Your skin colour is a fact, I’m white so I haven’t experienced racism in the same way as my black colleagues. To say otherwise would be to diminish their experience.

Trans is an ideaology. It’s more akin for asking me my views on heaven. I’m an atheist so it’s not something I believe in and I would push back on religious/ ideological terminology being used as factual during a staff training session.

You could argue that you were using 'cis' to simply mean 'not transgender' if you were talking about 'cis people' vs 'trans people', or 'women who are trans (ie transmen) vs 'women who are cis'.
But activists don't usually use it in that sense. They use it to compare 'cis women' to 'transwomen (ie a subclass of men)'. It only makes sense if you believe TWAW, which the OP doesn't, so she can't be expected to use that vocabulary.

You could argue that infidel means “not Christian” or “not Muslim” but it’s not a term most atheists would accept.

Trans essentially means ‘other’ (‘other side’/beyond); why should anyone have to use a descriptor to express that they are the normative counterpart to trans, ie state you are ‘Not Other’? It is fully expressed by NOT using the word ‘trans’.

I think you’re missing the point that OP’s employer shouldn’t have been putting someone with a protected characteristic (biological woman) on the spot in a training session and pressing her to describe her experience of having that protected characteristic.

Its unlawful harassment under the EA and is wrong on so many levels, even if they hadn’t described OP as ‘cis’.

Employment of Cis vs Trans gender is categorising everyone with a gender identity. If you search for a definition you will find “The word cisgender describes a person whose gender identity corresponds to their sex assigned at birth”. Can you genuinely not see that someone who views gender as a social construct that oppresses them does not want to be put in a box of a person whose gender identity corresponds to their sex?

This is an entire other discussion but briefly not everyone is be comfortable with this use of language around skin colour / race both in terms of the way it's categorised and reducing one to the other. I am personally offended by being expected to identify as either mixed race or white. I would decline to answer the question...

And its not appropriate to expect employees to disclose their ethnicity or other personal information in front of others, whatsoever, especially in the questioners' language. It's important that people aren't expected to disclose sensitive information in the workplace and if they do it's in language that's under their control.

You are completely missing the point. Forcing anyone who hasn't actively chosen to self-describe themselves as such as "cis" is more like saying to someone at a workshop on understanding catholicism "please tell us about your experience of life as a heretic" or expecting atheists to be categorised as "followers of another religion" because the concept of not having a religion isn't accepted. It is absolutely offensive.

If a woman believes in the magic insubstantial concept of gender as a thing that is an intrinsic aspect of herr inner self, which happens to align with cultural concepts of womanhood, she might well choose to call herself "cis" - that's her choice.

If a woman recognises gender as solely as cultural expressions of sexism, and the means by which the patriarchy continues to oppress all women, as well as the means by which those who don't conform to such expectations are punished, then she will not lay claim to any gender, any more than a prisoner would want their chains to be considered a part of their "true self". She is not on the same axis as people who are cis or trans, she has rejected it. Calling her Cis is an insult, and a misgendering.

Not sure why you are quoting me? I totally agree using cis is deeply and utterly fucking offensive. I’m explaining why using it is a gymnastic exercise semantically. I will not allow it to be used in reference to myself as I am not ‘cis’.

I don’t need the lecture as I have not missed the point at all. Thanks

Oops sorry I quoted the wrong person due to friday night tired. My apologies.

Sorry for my tone… should have realised and dialled it down.

The word "cisgender" was coined in English in 1994 in America by graduate student Dana Defosse, but the term was discussed much earlier, in German in 1914 in relation to sexology, where the habit of wearing "gender-conforming" clothing was described as "cisvestitismus" whereas cross-dressing was called "transvestitismus".

I find it interesting that academics studying gender and "gendered behaviour" decided to describe people's appearance, what they wore, in this way. Academia has a lot to answer for, but describing in technical terms how people "express their gender" through dress could so easily have been just an academic exercise, never affecting the lives of ordinary people. It might have been a minor ripple in social history instead of the huge shouting-match it's turned into.

Thing is, what a person chooses to wear doesn't really affect others. It's a person's behaviour that has an impact, not their clothes. So if people want to wear clothes that make a statement, clothes that represent their concept of themselves, fine. Women can wear trousers or whatever, men can wear skirts or kilts or dresses. It doesn't matter. It's dressing up.

It is a giant step from wearing clothes a person likes wearing, to them insisting that wearing those clothes gives that person a new identity, a different "gender". Then, insisting that other people respect and acknowledge the new identity. Insisting that other people must see them as being the new "gender". Saying that people are disgusting bigots if they question this ideology in any way. And going further, insisting that everyone use the terminology invented by the "new gender" ideologues, and use the terminology to define their own "gender", their own identity. Or else. If other people fail to use the ideological terms, they must be punished, shunned, shamed.

No. This weird fantasy is ending. I'm one of the other people, and I don't agree to be defined by those terms. I don't want or need a "gender identity". I am not "cis", nor am I "trans". (It's just a fact of life.)

To me, if I was a transwoman, I’d find the word cis to describe women very transphobic. I men, if cis means on the side of… ie a woman, and trans means the other side of.. the other side of woman is man so by saying women are cis women, they are just confirming that TW are indeed men. Even the TRA language is transphobic.

You are a massive hypocrite.

I haven't been in the least confrontational, or even openly GC. I'd like to be able to say I had. But anyone in my sector knows this would be career suicide.

I have little doubt that certain colleagues will have clocked my lack of pronouns, signatures and rainbow compliance-symbols. I've been probed on the issue, and am on the verge of asking a particular colleague to stop. But it does greatly sadden me. One of those open letters has been signed by a number of people I know, and they are people whom I like and respect. It's one of the most difficult, divisive issues I've ever had to navigate.

I am, however, clear about the degree to which I can be forced to 'signal' compliance and I have strong personal boundaries. Others don't get to redefine me against my will.

Hi OP, my worry is your reputation has been called into question and that is very serious.
You could consider going to next layer up- not the manager who attacked you, but their manager.
Ask for a meeting face to face and explain your concerns. In particular the reputational damage being done to you by accusing you - a senior nurse- of not being a good role model. There is no evidence to back this up and you want this to be retracted pronto. Write everything down as OP have suggested. You’ve done nothing wrong in answering a question about how you define yourself.

If you like.

Along with 99% of the population.

Why must you put labels on everyone?

"Cisoleth" sounds like something out of Lovecraft.

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 based on the social stereotypes that cause us so much harm.

If we expected black or asian people to be defined publicly by how much they identify with the stereotypes society puts on them because of their race, it would be considered racist and objectionable. Or people with disabilities, or the elderly.

Have not read all thread so apologies if this has been said but couldn't you argue that assuming you are 'cis' is inappropriate. It is not inclusive to label someone as 'cis' when they don't know the first thing about them or what terminology they prefer.

I agree with whoever said - ask for it in writing and then respond in writing. I have decided I don't use the term woman (nevermind cis woman) anymore and will stick with female.

This

Yup