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 don’t think you’ve said anything wrong at all OP. I admire you for sticking to facts and refusing to be pressured by others. I’m always generally amazed how many adults forget that we don’t all have to agree (usually ones who think they are tolerant and respectful of difference, but are actually far from it 😂).

Oh, they'll tell you.

Just wondering, when did we all start ‘identifying’? I feel like it’s a misuse of the word. Me, I am a woman. If you want to find out more, get to know me.

God, I miss the old times when we didn't bring our whole selves to work.

This.

I'm new to all this

Is there a term for men that reflects the "cis woman" term?

If you are a human female who does not believe in gender identity ideology, you are not 'cis', as you do not have a gender identity.

Edit. Also, a human male who does not believe in gender identity ideology is not 'cis', as he does not have a gender identity.

That is your belief system. In the UK, the Equality Act ensures that people with a belief that is worthy of respect in a democratic society must not be discriminated against for holding that view. Thanks to Maya Forstater, we know that believing that there are two sexes, that mammals are all either female or male, that nobody can change sex, and that it is therefore unnecessary to use this recent coinage 'cisgender', is a protected belief. It remains to be seen whether your belief system would pass the test if there is ever a court case about it.

Surely using terminology that describes 50% of the worlds population is inclusive?

People only use “I identify as” when they can’t say “I am”.

usually because they aren’t.

I don't think anyone on this thread doesn't know what it means. But personally I don't subscribe to the idea that my sex was "assigned at birth" by some sort of post-natal sorting hat, nor that I have a "gender identity" as opposed to just being the sex that I am.

Gender ideology is a religion. Like all religions, it is unsupported by facts or science, so you can't force people to abide by your religious terms or beliefs.

Surely 'cis' is an exclusive term as in excluding. The very opposite of inclusive which is something agreed with.

“Thank you for your presentation about your religion. It was very interesting. My beliefs are different and protected in law against employment discrimination. Are there any legal proceedings you’d like to begin?”

I believe the word you are looking for is transwomen , since it appears that only men who say they are women think it is vital to their self esteem and “identity” to diminish women by removing our right to call ourselves women by labelling us with unnecessary prefixes.

Quite. It usually seems to translate as "I identify as special and interesting" and...they aren't.

I understand 100% what the term cis woman means. However, I am a woman. thats my pronouns thats how I like to be referred to. if one of my colleagues prefers to be referred to in some other way I 100% respect that. but respect goes both ways. you cant ask for it if you arent prepared to give it. thats called being an adult. If I find forms with the word cis woman on then I cross this word out and I correct every single time someone refers to me as such and that is absolutely my right so to do and I will continue doing it.

If they want to have a mixed sex group for people who identify as lesbians, the ruling doesn't prevent them. It's just that they can't exclude heterosexual men.

We really do need a

😱

reaction button!

God they sound tedious!

The thing is... if this dude wants to be known as a 'they' then you are entitled to be known as a "woman" not a "cis woman".

That clarifies matters beautifully. Presumably there must be lots of rulings people don't like, I'm sure I could think of a couple if I put my mind to it. But it's reassuring to know that I can just "not recognise" them.

I have seen it argued by pro-trans activists that asking people to state their pronouns when everyone is going round introducing themselves is itself problematic, precisely because there are people who identify as trans but don't want to have to out themselves. So if, say, a man who identifies (but only internally for now) as a woman is asked to state their pronouns, they either have to say "she/her" and invite incredulity, or "he/him" and deal with the internal stress. (I'm not endorsing this, merely reporting it, although it seems to make sense once you accept the premise.) Or they can say "I'd rather not say", which is itself outing.

(There are also some pro-trans people who reject the idea of being non-binary. At least if you are born a man and want to identify as a woman, you are accepting that men and women exist.)

Part of the stupidity of <waves hands> "all this" is that nobody on the happy-clappy side has sat down and thought about the logical consequences of their lines of argument, as shown above. Another is that OP's position of not recognising the concept of gender identity (which, unlike biological sex, is entirely socially constructed) is equally valid. Indeed, the claims of the colleague mentioned in the OP reinforce that — if they are allowed to not have a gender ("agender") then surely everyone else can. Or is "not having a gender" also a gender identity? 🤔

The whole thing is philosophical bobbins, but I suspect that if you took this kind of argument to HR, it would end with them saying (after checking that nobody can overhear) "look, @wherearethemarsbars, can't you just play along, we have to be nice to these people, otherwise they will call us bigots and the company will be getting boycotted". OP's position is probably shared by over half of her colleagues, they just don't have the courage to say so (often for very good reason, I should add — we can't all be Tank Man or Rosa Parks).

One bright spot is that after the SC ruling, employers are going to be thinking very, very hard about doing anything to GC people that might end up in front of a tribunal, because they will be getting their derrières handed to them on a silver platter.

Why are you imposing gender on me? I reject the constraints of gender entirely.

If I want to lay a patio or service my car I will not be looking to the gender gods for approval.

I have a sex, an immutable characteristic, which tells you about my biology but nothing about my personality or interests.

A mixed sex group for people who identify as lesbians.

OK, let’s just take a step back and think about that one for a moment shall we?

I do not share any part of your pseudoreligion, and even by your own catechisms you are being a massive hyprocrite.