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?

Indeed. I consider myself a woman in the original sex-based meaning. In contexts where "woman" is being taken as a mental gender I "identify" as an agender female and am happy to have a conversation about what that means to me, the challenges that come with it and why being assumed to be a "cis woman" is so offsensive and erasing of a marginalised group.

It's trans people who need to identify themselves as such (if they want to obviously). Everyone else are men and women, that needs no extra words or explanation. Man, Woman, Trans Man, Trans Woman, the cis is totally unnecessary. I guess you could have rephrased the question as, 'you mean my experience of life not being a trans person'.

The label ‘cis’ comes from an ideology that has been imposed on us without consent. This language is coercive. We never agreed to be redefined.

The Free Speech Union is not a trades union. It is a campaigning organisation founded by Tory peer Lord Young when he was just plain Toby Young.

Yep. I'm a woman because I'm an adult human female, no other reason, no other qualifications. There are, or should be, no further implications attached.

Why does 'being inclusive' never include being inclusive people with gender critical views i.e. reality.

Anyway, enough about you, can we talk about me now!

OP I couldn't let this go without getting it committed to paper/email. You are on their radar now anyway as 'one of those GC women' so I'd be wanting their position in writing, or at least no rebuttal from them if you email them your understanding of the situation so far.

One of the things that really annoys me about the whole trans argument thing, is that they are so concerned with what everyone calls them but have zero empathy for biological women who object to being called cis. Consideration works both ways.

Yes, put it on the record. Ask them in writing to clarify their position on it.

I have nothing against being trans or asexual or anything else and I happily identify as a cis woman; that’s my choice. I would never try and tell another woman she is a cis woman. I feel this is the wrong way round, you are being reprimanded for being told what you identify as!? Surely you can identify how you like - they need to review their training!

You might think that but there are several, seemingly contradictory, meanings of “asexual”.

100% agree.

The terms 'Cis woman' and ' Cis man' should go in the bin, IMO.
'Woman' and 'Man' are all that is needed.

Check out the Maya Forstater's interview with Triggernometry. If you go to around 53 minutes in she talks about what happened with her job. It might help you. The whole interview is great. What an amazing woman she is in the way she dealt with this.

Brilliant, I'd do this first and then follow up with my suggestion above afterwards.

My brother is in an a-romantic, but sexual relationship with a non-binary transman who takes no hormones, wears long pig tails and pretty frilly frocks and I just see it as a lot of faff to explain that you're just in a casual heterosexual relationship.

This kind of situation concerns me because I tend to be very direct and clear about my views and feelings. I also don’t personally use or identify with the term 'cis,' and I would have expressed myself in a similar way to what was said. If someone chooses to ask me questions about my views, I believe it's important to be prepared for honest answers. If I were then called into a meeting about it, I might end up in more trouble by pointing out that people shouldn’t ask questions if they’re not open to hearing a truthful response.

I think I'd be asking why the rules are different for you and your colleague. They get to be known as they choose, but you have to accept being referred to as cis, when it is not something you identify as. That would be a good start.

Good grief. I would imagine by the time his partner had decided which toilet matched all of those identities she'd have wet herself.

Why do people at work need to know someone is asexual?

True but in effect the Equality act is the prevailing legislation that guides how we are now interacting in public spaces going forwards from shops to toilets to commercial enterprises etc. It makes sense that we aren’t using 2 sets of definitions. In the OP’s case it is work place so the Equality act is what needs to be followed

Cis is short for Cisgender which means someone whose gender identity matches their sex assigned at birth.
So, if you're a woman, and when you were born you were female, then you're cisgender.

+1000.

do they sell cards for that in Clinton cards?

Does your setting have a Freedom to Speak up Guardian, if yes, then speak to them and explain that the interaction has made you feel uncomfortable and it is inappropriate to expect everyone to share their personal life if they have not agreed to do so.