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?

Definitely get this down in writing, OP. Your position is watertight.

Hahaha, no. Yet again, here you are touting your false information, do give it a rest.

I think they were out of order putting you on the spot like that in the training.

It's clearly your management who need to learn to be "inclusive", since they've decided that people who maintain a sex-realist worldview (which is the majority of the population) can be censured and discriminated against for doing so.

Legally, they are certainly in the wrong, as many organisations have found to their cost.

Oh Chris, you silly billy!

"Cis" doesn't mean "someone who isn't trans" at all!

"Cis" means "someone whose gender identity aligns with their gender assigned at birth"

So it can only apply to people who actually have a gender identity, which a great many people do not.

Gosh, this has been explained to you so many times now, it really is very odd you never seem to remember.

i will gently remind you again that many people, especially women who live with the social and physical consequences of how society treats people of their body sex regardless of how they may personally "identify", find being assumed to be "cigender" quite offensive. Please do better to be more considerate and inclusive.

Imposing the trans agenda on the workplace is done via coercive control - as you've just discovered. Everyone is compelled to smile and nod and accept whatever language is bestowed on them by members of the sacred caste - sometimes enabled by useful idiots in an organisation.

If that sounds harsh, remember women have been bullied into compliance over all this for years.

I would feel the same as you OP, but in all honesty I would have just answrred the question in their context as the very fact they have arranged this session would have signalled to me that they would have issue with me raising it.
I am the higger earner in my house and can't afford to lose my job.
I do think you did a brave thing and without people speaking up then nothing changes. So you are right, but I would be cowardly in this particular scenario.

Has this been a formal warning OP? Are you expected to respond?

Part of me would want to take this further, get them to put it in writing, then wipe the floor with them, quoting Forstater , SC ruling etc.

But part of me would want to just laugh at them and say “yeah whatever”!

I’d probably do something in between. Maybe send an email saying that as an experienced healthcare professional you will always treat your colleagues and patients equally, and will respect their chosen pronouns. But that in return you expect them to respect your view of yourself as a women, not a cis woman.

I think if someone can choose how they are referred to then everyone can....and that includes defining how they refuse to be referred to....so if someone can refuse to be called "he or she" you can refuse to be called "cis" and I say this as someone who doesn't mind the term being used about me but would not use it about another unless they asked me to. Saucy goosey and all that.

So he can have two 'I'm special' badges instead of one interesting personality?

I always misread agender as agenda.

I am angry in your behalf OP. If I had been on the receiving end of I’m not sure I would have been able to keep calm. In fact I know I would react. I can’t bear to hear the word casually used, without perhaps acknowledging that the term can offend. Yes to having things in writing.

What point could be made?

What is the difference between being a woman who identifies as agender and being a woman who doesn't identify with a gender identity?

I suppose it could be an interesting philosophical discussion, which would necessarily involve discussing what 'cis' means. Maybe next week they could get their Catholic and Protestant employees to discuss transubstantiation and see how that works out. However, they would get into difficulty if they suggested one belief was correct.

When you email asking for the position in writing copy in their manager, their manager’s manager and HR. Shit ‘em up.

Maybe this training course on agender people could help Chris?

This.

Keep it unemotional and factual (and extremely polite) but put the questions back to them.

I'd phrase it as 'thank you for supporting the position that colleagues have agency over how they are defined.

In line with this, I am uncomfortable with the label cis. This is offensive to many people.

Can you explain more about how we manage these competing beliefs? The right to a gender critical view is enshrined in law through the Forstater ruling etc (provide links).

Point out that not wanting this label does not reflect a transphobic outlook.

They are being ridiculous. Not sure it would be a workplace for me.

What is the difference between being a woman who identifies as agender and being a woman who doesn't identify with a gender identity?

agender = believes in gender identity but is too special to have one (?)

the problem with 'cis' is that it implies that someone is comfortable with the stereotypes associated with their sex. For example I am a woman but not feminine so I struggle with being called a cis-woman. I am also not a subset of woman, I am a woman, simple as that.

Absolutely this.

Did the person giving the training assume you were a woman or did they ask first? I would have said I don't identify as a cis woman and no elaborated any further. Respect and inclusivity works both ways.

The revelation of what your occupation is doesn't surprise me. I also work for a captured public sector institution. The Maya Forstater and SC judgements have the law on your side, so the suggestion to put any concerns in writing is an interesting one (and there is no way they will do that).

Organisational policy compels me to address people by their chosen name. I don't have any problem with that. Then there are pronouns. I avoid using sex/gendered pronouns at all for the most part: adopting a 'mangling language' approach which I try to see as a game. I do not address people by unwanted pronouns: that's against organisational policy and could see me disciplined. This way I don't offend anyone and am able hold to my own principles.

What they cannot expect me to do, ever, is to accept the labels they arbitrarily attach to me. I do not accept 'cis'. I will vocally state that I do not accept 'cis'. I do not announce 'my' own pronouns, nor do I wear rainbow lanyards or display embellished signatures. I don't respond to requests for 'my' pronouns in meetings. I maintain an awkward silence, or inform them this isn't a practice I follow.

I've always refused to attend any gender 'training' (aka brow beating), and when this has been included as part of a strategy day agenda I've ensured that for this portion I've been absent. I know that ship has already sailed for you but in the event that you have to stay in this job I wouldn't be attending any more.

The demand that we signal compliance in this way boils my blood. They cannot force you to declare your 'gender' or to dictate the terms in which you refer to yourself.

Respect/'inclusion' cuts both ways.

I respect and use my colleague's pronouns, I would appreciate it if I am respected equally by not calling me 'cis' or 'cis gender' as this is insulting to my own personal beliefs which have been tested in court as equivalent to a religious faith.

I expect this to be conveyed to any colleagues or outside training providers.

My youngest briefly claimed to be agender, we both missed the spelling and for a few, heady, days I was Chairmum. I don't miss minuting all the conversations though.

I thought if you were 'agender' you were claiming the gender identity of not having a gender identity. They/themming anyway seems to be trying to have cake and eating it.

Agreed. What about YOUR right to define yourself as YOU see fit?

Declaring your sexuality in the workplace is so cringe.
Who wants to know what others get up to in the bedroom? Yuck.
I can see revealing it to your close team would be of benefit, but not the wider workplace.
I have no idea what sexuality my coworkers are, I can make assumptions based on their partners, but they would only be guesses, and I don't want to know.
Attention seeking.