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 agree with everyone who has suggested asking them to explain in writing why they believe your behaviour was unacceptable and why it demonstrated you are not being “inclusive.”

You didn’t say anything offensive or anything suggestive of you not being “inclusive.” You we’re perfectly polite. I think you could go on the offensive though and submit a grievance about how uncomfortable the cack-handed trainer, who should have taken the cue from your first answer and not pressed you further, made you feel and that since then you are feeling there is an intimidating and/or hostile working environment because of your beliefs. This was worsened by some informal reprimand several days later. Use all of the terminology from their workplace behaviour policies back at them!

I'd ask them to put their concerns in writing. Then respond that the trainer assumed your gender identity without asking you. And that nobody should be forced to "out" their personal beliefs or identity in a work environment - as @OuterSpaceCadet suggested. Point out that you actually set a great example for junior colleagues to politely refuse to answer questions about their identity.

Then ask if, in the light of the many court cases in this area, (reference a few) someone from Sex Matters should be brought in to talk about how to be inclusive of sex realist beliefs in the workplace.

I would email them. Something along the lines of:

Following our recent conversation during which you expressed that my behaviour at a recent compulsory training was unacceptable, I wonder whether you might do me the courtesy of explaining in writing precisely how my ‘behaviour’ and comments meet this description. I would draw your attention to Forstater v CGD 2021 and the recent Supreme Court ruling clarifying the EA2010, along with the ECHR interim guidance, both of which a) set out the law on this matter and frame my own legal rights with respect to my place of employment and b) highlight that inclusivity and tolerance applies to all parties in the workplace.

I look forward to receiving a written explanation shortly.

And cc HR.

Always amuses me how 'inclusion ' seems to exclude those who don't comfort yo the gender woo.

I'd be asking her what she's doing to make you feel included.

Ultimately OP, the BeKinders like this one are telling you that your experiences, your self-identity, your feeling your words are Not Acceptable. That somehow, it's all on you to avoid the landmines of "offending" the Special People's feelings. So now you have to be scolded for "You should have done this/said that/gone along with it"

Then work needs to change. Not OP.

Surely imposing 'cis' on someone who doesn't believe in gender is like imposing 'infidel' or 'heretic' on someone for their lack of specific religious beliefs?

Always amuses me how 'inclusion ' seems to exclude those who don't conform to the gender woo.

I'd be asking her what she's doing to make you feel included.

I’m sorry you’ve been questioned for asserting your own experiences. It’s absolutely mad.

Definitely get them to commit to themselves on paper and clarify exactly what they mean so they can’t wriggle out of it.

Nope.

It implies a belief that the individual's gender aligns with their sex.

It would perhaps be more accurate to describe the OP as agender, like the colleague whose announcement instigated the training.

"Agender is a term used by individuals who do not identify with any specific gender or who experience a lack of gender altogether."

This might even describe a majority experience.

This could escalate things that will otherwise go away, but if you think it is going to rumble on then you need a written record. This would involve writing to the person who pulled you up outlining what you have said above (what happened at the meeting and subsequent interview) and saying that your belief that the term ‘cis women’ is exclusionary and is not respectful of women is protected in law (ref. Maya Forstater v CGD Europe and others).

Your place of employment didn't get the memo.

We don't have to put up with bullshit like this any more OP. The term cis is made up by gender-ideologits to differentiate between 'born' women and trans-woman. We are now allowed to admit that a trans-woman is just that, a 'trans-woman', therefore we don't need to use a differentiator.

If your work are keen on respect and progression, they might want to keep abreast with the news and read the room. Twats - I would 100% ask them to explain their concerns in writing.

How can someone be agender and they/them? I could understand if it was 'agenda' and they wanted to be addressed like they were a committee.

@wherearethemarsbars the benefits of threads like this are you can safely talk it through and have a laugh.

The direct approach by some posters is great in theory but not in reality.

As a pp has pointed out you need to find the right approach in a work environment.

Putting it in writing is a good way of getting it on the record.

A soft response along the lines of you found the season interesting and useful but are surprised that identifying as a woman rather than a cis woman is not considered inclusive.

I have always believed inclusivity is about respecting people how ever they identify. There are people who identify as Cis Women and there are people who identify as women.

Nope. For a long while the term 'cis' completely enraged me, without me really understanding why.
I am not a 'cis' anything, I am a woman. I was born female, and I will remain female. Nobody anywhere is going to force on me a term to describe a woman who isn't trans.
We already have a word for that. It's WOMAN.

Recently, a colleague at my company has declared that they are ‘agender’ and asexual and has asked to be addressed as ‘they’.

I can't get past this. Nobody cares other than the colleague in question. They are nothing more than an attention seeker. This nonsense needs to stop, especially at work.

OP, you did nothing wrong. In like of the recent SC ruling coupled with Forstater's win, your management is on very dicey ground. To echo others, ask them to put into writing what their concerns are about what you said, more so as you didn't not say anything remotely transphobic. (Not that they said that per se but that's what they are implying.)

This whole 'living as a woman' stuff is complete bollocks. Not a single person in the whole world can define what it actually means, and the sooner brave women like OP can kick it out of the park, the better.

Depressing how many people in healthcare have been seriously captured by the trans stuff.

Another healthcare setting that has fallen into this bollocks trap.

It's enraging.

It's a load of nonsense.
As PP says, if they want to make an official complaint about you then they need to follow the proper procedures. Otherwise just ignore and get on with your life.

Good advice!

CIS is bullshit, entirely appropriated to make biological women a subset of womanhood. I, and other adult human females reject CIS/don't recognise it because it is meaningless to us. Women (as a sex-class) do not need descriptors.

Are you working for the NHS?

Can you contact the legal department or is there a whistleblowing process?

They don't seem to be up to date on the law.

Do fod

Turn that around to someone who identifies as they/them and see how that pans out. This is compelled speech and is unlawful. Respect works two ways, the OP doesn’t recognise herself as ‘cis’ so shouldn’t have to accept it.

This