Slightly Concerning Course Content

All I would go so far as to do is to state that I am willing to address people by the names they prefer. This is in line with my organizational policy. Beyond that, I'd simply be asking H.R. in what other circumstances employees would be expected to sign confirmation of their privately held political, philosophical or ideological beliefs.If they can't answer this, or provide evidence of where this is happening, then this is reasonable grounds for refusal to sign on this one privileged basis.

In no circumstances would I sign this document as it stands, nor display 'my' prounouns on any badge or signature or announce them in meetings, or accept the offensive descriptor of cis. I do not identify with a bunch of regressive gendered stereotypes.

So far, attendance at 'training' such as this in my organization has been done on a voluntary basis despite the fact that my employer is up to its nuts in flags, rainbows and Stonewall. What they are, is very well-versed in the law and tend to skate just inside it. But I will not be attending any such training on any pretext.

This is a hill to die on for me. And I expect my employer will be about the last to emerge into the sunlight, blinking and dazzled from the FOG, when the full ramifications of the Cass report begin to become apparent (as if they are not already).

No, thank you.

Good grief- who supplies this course material???
It would be interesting to see if they cover other protected characteristics: racism, sexism, disabilities really are the Cinderellas of the Equality Act

That's a fantastic response. Hope I have the guts to do the same.

On a physical level, regarding people who say their gender identity does not match the sex of their bodies, do you think that nature has made a mistake about the biological sex some people are born, to the point that their bodies need hormones and surgery to make them appear approximately ‘correct’?
(NB I am not talking about the very rare occurrences of DSDs.)

I hope I'd have the guts to write something like this ...

"This is an interesting area of debate, based on the interpretation of 'woman'.
While some believe 'woman' is a feeling - and therefore they could agree the person has 'felt like a woman' all their lives, many others believe that a woman is based on sex, and use the definition 'adult human female'. As sex cannot be changed, by this definition a male can never 'become' a woman. The freedom to hold the latter opinion is protected in law (Maya Forstater v CGD Europe)."

And ignore the big about agreement.

When I was doing the training I thought ‘how bad can it be?’ And it was actually worse.

Gender folk are all gentle little souls who can be mortally wounded by a word, look or thought (sounds almost like the prayer we used to say ‘I have sinned in word, thought and deed…’) and you MUST stick your nose in of anyone dares not treat them like a piece of Lalique. You MUST agree that gender is something that exists and you MUST believe that humans can change sex (well you MUST treat them as if they have).

No mention of the GRC (that’s the ‘legal’ document?) and all about equality act (gender not sex) apart from not was all about gender identity. Definitely a whiff of stonewall law.

Yes so the training should say along the lines of "transwomen believe they are women". Keep it factual fgs.

Can you write to HR from the point of view of protecting the organisation?say you are concerned that the course content seems out of date and fails to recognise that GC views are a protected belief under the Equality Act due to the Forstater judgment and this statement you are being asked to agree to appears to ignore that. Pointing out it is like asking a Muslim to sign something to say they agree with Hindu beliefs might help drive the point home.

Sounds like the nonsense I had to complete (on line). I failed it a few times (it was utter nonsense and failed to address the equality act properly).

Gender is like the moon…apparently men can use the ladies loos if they feel more comfortable… and this thing called ‘cis’.

99% about men, one ‘non bio’ woman shown briefly.

All examples were about these poor poor gentle souls and all the fawning women stepping in to protect them (as they stand looking at the floor) when someone calls them by their birth name, or even suggests they aren’t all woman…

I complained to HR (who agreed and said ‘well it’s free…’), held my nose and answered ‘correctly’ and put in a command to the organisation who run the courses. I got a nervous ‘oh how can we help you…’ (this was a couple of days ago and I haven’t had time to write a blow by blow reply).

Thank you SO much for doing this! I get very frustrated and angry that trans is the ONLY bloody characteristic that seems worthy of being highlighted when organisations talk about 'diversity'. I'm not saying that nobody talks about disability or neurodiversity, but even within that area there are clearly certain aspects of disability that receive a lot more attention. I have a severely autistic child with LDs. His particular 'type' of neurodiversity very rarely gets a mention or consideration when far more articulate advocates for autism are banging on about themselves

And I never, ever hear about discrimination against older people, or menopausal women, in these workplace training packages. Please continue asking awkward questions.

"It's important to remember that if someone is trans, saying 'she used to be a man' is not accurate. Trans women are women, and they've never not been a woman."

Utter gaslighting bollocks.

“The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.”

It really annoys me that there is so little content on colleagues with disabilities or ageism none of which seem to get any attention. I am sure if we had a tenth of the training focused on people with vision and hearing or mobility problems we would improve the lives of many people and allow them to participate in the workplace - friend taught me some very simple British sign language please thank you hello and goodby and when I was served in the checkout the other day by a lady who had a badge explaining she was deaf and lip read I was able to sign thank you and goodbye. Simple things to learn but I could see from her face it had made her day better

if I've had to go to these sort of courses I always centre my questions in the other protected characteristics like disability and ask awkward questions about what is being done for colleagues it makes the point in a different way that trans isn't the be all and end all that trumps everyone else's rights

I've checked the Sex Matters web site and unfortunately the page that should have the leaflet your rights at work, doesn't work!

It maybe that it has been updated and is now this one.
https://sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/GC-rights-at-work-home-print.pdf

Doesn't deal with the situation of training but does explain about employers not discriminating against those with gender critical views. Which effectively the training is.

There are tw who state they used to be men. I know one who used to be married and has a son. His wife also thinks he was a man. Why are they trying to brainwash people? Creepy tactic.

Was this an online learning module? I used to work for a company who provide this kind of learning and the course is written by a staffer, in our case it was someone who would research the topic diligently and apply common sense so I don't think our version of that course would have been written like that but, the creator wasn't an expert in that field so in theory could be influenced by opinions. If you need to confirm understanding of the premise then I think that you won't be able to pass the course until you do which in many orgs would be an issue. That being said I believe in the case of my ex employer that if someone had approached us with a concern about the content of a course that it would have been taken seriously. So perhaps worth raising with the provider?

Thank you I will look again. Not sure I could find anything specific but it was a little while ago.

I'm really concerned at how many workplaces are rolling out edi training in order to tick boxes, but that training is not accredited in any way! They probably have no idea of the content they're buying in.

In a rush but doesn't Sex Matters have guidance material on this?

I don't believe in god, many people do. Why would I have to confirm my understanding that god is real when I don't believe that?

Meant to say thanks @IwantToRetire with that quote- I'm looking for some training/survey material that presents the issues as conflicting beliefs, as you point out.

I'm in a similar position OP, although not to the same extent, but glad you've started this thread! Seems awful they're getting you to put stuff in writing like that - sorry you're dealing with this.

The training I went to doesn't seem quite so extreme, but used the term "sex assigned at birth" which immediately raised my hackles and I raised it with my manager. I've suggested using the phrase change from birth sex to preferred gender, as per the current ehrc guidance. I'm also not happy with their equal opps questionnaire thing, as it doesn't give an option to say if you don't have a gender identity.

Does anyone know of any good training providers on this issue in the South East?

Or any good templates for equal opps surveys?

You could ask for clarification. For example "I'm unclear, are you asking whether some people believe that transwomen have never not been women,. or are you asking whether I personally believe that? Many thanks"

Sorry got interrupted when typing post above and published without re-reading.

So in case it isn't clear, the "beliefs" that need to be balanced are those who think you can change sex / gender and those who believe (know) that sex is a biological fact.

Good luck and sorry this is being done to you.

What a load of gaslighting nonsense. Erasing everyone else’s lived experience again.

So if you worked with Fred for five years, who then transitioned to Freda, are you supposed to go back and expunge all emails, reports, meeting minutes, records of work etc of references to Fred and replace with Freda? Because otherwise if someone new joined and said - oh I see in this record that Fred did X, where is he to ask about it, how do you handle that situation if you’re not not allowed to say Fred is now Freda?

In my area that would be fraud. Records have to be accurate and contemporary and any attempt to alter them without good reason are a massive red flag to auditors.

The issue is that I'm being asked to confirm my understanding and agreement.

If they are saying you have to agree I think this is totally inappropriate, and whoever is running this course and whoever employed them to do it, need to go on a course about not just employment rights but human rights!

As other have said, there is existing legal precedent now that has made it clear that this is about conflicting "belief" systems and that employers are required to ensure that they have equal rights in the work place.

So if you do have an HR dempartment (or a manager you feel safe to talk to) go to them and rather than put yourself in the position of having to justify yourself, just say you are concerned the course contents are in breach of legal guidance and as employers that are putting themselves in a position of potential legal action.

FanFckingTastic, are you part of a team which had to do this training, or do you have people working for you who will have to do it? If so you could approach your manager, or your HR team to point out that the training is out of date, highlight that colleagues might have views which contradict the training, and which they have a legal right to hold. Would you feel comfortable to do this with the intention of helping your organisation stay on the right side of the law and making it a comfortable & inclusive place for everyone to work?