MHFA England - captured?

Resurrecting this thread, as I’ve been looking for something on this.
I’m currently on this course and as a white middle aged woman I’ve been shocked at the MHFAEngland training. We have a trainer who basically is telling us we are being certified as ‘white fragile’ because we cannot see the ‘reality of being black’, we need to be allies ( agreed but I can be that even if I am white) and a speaker who is trans man who was lovely but then we were told the resources were to advise on purchasing chest bands.
I'm shocked to be honest as i thought id be learning about mental health, I appreciate that some people in society have a higher risk of developing mental health conditions and how to support, but instead white, British, neurotypical people male or female haven’t been mentioned.

AI response:

The terms “cisgender” and “transgender” come from a gender identity framework, which does presume that people have an internal sense of gender—separate from their biological sex—and that this internal identity can either match (cis) or differ (trans) from their assigned sex.

In that sense, yes, the cis/trans distinction is grounded in a form of gender essentialism—specifically, the belief that individuals have a deeply rooted, perhaps innate, gender identity that is core to who they are. This framework is dominant in many contemporary discussions around gender, especially in progressive academic and activist circles.

What you’re identifying:

You’re challenging the validity or usefulness of using gender identity as the defining characteristic for manhood or womanhood, and suggesting that calling someone “cis” imposes that framework on them—even if they don’t subscribe to it. That’s a legitimate philosophical and political concern. It’s not about being offended by a word—it’s about not agreeing with the ideological assumptions baked into it.

To sum up:

• You’re not denying gender dysphoria or transgender identities exist.
• You’re rejecting the idea that gender identity should override sex in defining fundamental categories like “man” or “woman.”
• You’re critiquing the use of “cisgender” as an imposed label that presumes acceptance of a gender identity framework you don’t hold.

That’s a defensible and increasingly visible position in many public and academic debates.

Not sure if it’s any use but it does give a simple explanation.

It seems they can’t even get their own definitions correct. In their response they refer to the person’s ’sexual identity corresponds to…’ when it actually should be ‘gender identity’. Sexual identity is based on sexual attraction etc.

I would suggest to them that citing Wikipedia and the American National Institute of Health as references suggests their research is not geared to UK organisation and practice. That they need to be clearer in their use of the word gender. And that the mental health of WOMEN needs to be considered.

I am tempted to say that they have appropriated the word "cis" from contexts e.g. chemistry where it can be legitimately said to apply, but that it is not in use in common parlance. Not only will it not be understood by many recipients, but in cases where the word has been met in this context, some would find it unnecessary and probably offensive. The word 'Woman' suffices - trans women, with whom they seem to be focussing on, still retain their original sex, i.e. male

They talk about "gender" but now that this has been divorced from the study of languages and grammar, it is a social construct or at best a twee euphemism for the word Sex but is otherwise meaningless. If sex matters in the field of mental health, then why not make this clear?

It could be read as a case study where they were trying to be sex neutral, but it's clear from your dialogue with them, that they have been fully captured.

Well you weren’t wrong about them being captured 😳

I would have assumed (presumably wrongly) that Lou is short for Louise. In real life, surely you would know someone’s pronouns if they were in your own workplace and wanting to talk to you?

with that number of pronouns I think its pretty obvious they are expecting you to pick up on it and mirror the pronouns
in that situation I think I would have been very direct and said, 'so, this Lou, presumably is non binary as we don't have any information about their sex. but this story seems to be about low mood made worse by an unsympathetic work culture. If Lou came to me for a chat I'd ....'
the non binary thing seems irrelevant given the information you have to go on so I would be inclined to treat it as irrelevant

Why can't we say funny any more?

It sounds like they were pushing “non binary” identities.

This just sounds like "How do we make it all about Trans".

Perhaps the new boss was just an out and out bastard who would pick on anyone. They are all too common. Otherwise apart from the "they" type pronouns, which are a giveaway, Lou/Loo could have been e.g. a person of colour who was being picked upon.

Lou/Loo sounds like a Beth Upton.

I recently did MHFA training and gender identity didn’t come up. My guess is it isn’t a trick question and it’s your specific trainers personal campaign and they’re deviating from the guidance.

My workplace also deliver the training so I work with people who are trainers for it. Gender identity is not part of it specifically, other than the fact you would consider the whole person in front of you if someone needs support.

ETA I am just doubting if your training is via MHFA England because I was going to suggest you contact MHFA themselves and explain that this trainer spent time on this and it felt out of lace and distracted from your learning about the MHFA principles. but I checked my materials and can’t see a character called Lou so maybe your training wasn’t from that provider.

soontobeconfirmed

Can you give feedback to say that the training was rubbish, and ask for training to deal with Mental Health issues for those with other protected characteristics - say e.g. people with disabilities.

Could you say also that you found it exclusive - that you don't know what the term 'cis' means for example and saw no need to mention pronouns?

The trainer told her off for misgendering twice and stated that the case study had been deliberately designed to be a trick question that was ungendered to make us have a conversation regarding gender

Seems like a typical TRA-type tactic; humiliate people to try to force them to carry out your agenda. There are plenty of other ways to encourage a conversation about gender, and none of them involve a power trip.

Sounds like you did a great job there @ConflictedbutCritical

I too am struggling to see the need to focus on gender issues for this training. Surely MH first aiders’ training equips you to listen, try to point to resources for help, etc, but specifically is not a therapy or diagnostic. So why try to shoehorn gender ideology training into it? Surely you are talking one to one so use the persons name and “you”?

If I were to approach my works MHFA and was asked about my pronouns I would be dumbstruck (as I would be needing support not antagonism)

so...you were presented with a written case study about a person called 'Lou' that avoided using any pronouns and had no clue as to the person's sex, and then someone was told off for assuming the person was female?
that's just a badly written case study!
In real life, as we all know, a person's sex is immediately obvious in 90% of cases also their age and possibly their ethnicity, nationality and class
the only pronoun you would need in real life is 'you'

if they wanted to make a point about respecting people's gender identity (and I agree that in a crisis it's not the time to take issue with that) you would need a case study that obviously flagged that up, eg
Sam is a 25 year old transwoman who....
even then you don't need 3rd person pronouns when talking to someone.

IME a good 90% of workplace MHFAs did it for the CV points and should be nowhere near the topic.

Too many have a very personal agenda that affects their capacity and competence.

Their knowledge of the area tends to be based on wholly inadequate training. I used to think it was because too much was online. But, from the sound of it, having a human to lead it is not necessarily better.

It does seem like it’s time to try a new approach. Sex based language and not lying to people about fundamental basics of life is definitely worth a try. It might help and will make life a lot better for everyone else.

I spoke to a person who expressed suicidal ideation in the course of my work today. I used my training, supported, de-escalated and connected with appropriate follow on services.

At no point did I need to ask about sex or gender or use any pronouns other than "You" and "Your".

The trainer told her off for misgendering twice and stated that the case study had been deliberately designed to be a trick question that was ungendered to make us have a conversation regarding gender.

Ridiculous scenario - the trainer set you up to fail.

So Lou was not even present? Why the big deal? And if Lou had been present, what if Lou belonged to the large number of people who find being asked about their gender identity and pronouns confusing, irrelevant, or plain stupid?