I declined the offer of being LGBTQ lead at work. Colleague who took the role no longer wants it.

[CosmicCanary]

She had the training on Friday and has since contacted me to tell me she does not want the role and asked why I declined it.

Bit of background.
I have over the years taken on various projects at work which have had good results. They are mostly around supporting the more minority groups of our client base. I enjoy these projects so was always happy to volunteer however I have avoided this new directive because I knew what the narrative would be and the focus of the training.

After speaking to the colleague that has taken on the role it seems I was right.

A full days training barely touched upon the LGB and focused mostly on the T and the Q.
The trainer spent the majority of the day discussing genders/pronouns/authentic self and how people should be labelled with lots of talk of if you are not LGBTQ you are cis and that is the correct label.
She said the L was mentioned for about 5 minutes.
My colleague is 31 and she thought she was quite inclusive and open minded however she has said the cis narrative and the focus on genders and lack of LGB in the training has made her feel "odd".
She said it was effectively trans training with the tone being you do and say as you are told to no questions.

She no longer wants the role as she feels she disagrees with the main focus as it is not inclusive of the LGB.
The turning point for her was when the trainer announced there are TW and cis women ( no mention of TM and cis men). Another person on the training asked why not just TW & women and was told that is not inclusive language and others transwomen so cis is used to differentiate women from transwomen.

She said that after the training the group sort of hung around to have coffee and most were a bit regarding the training and how to preform this new role as it suddenly does not seem to be what they first thought.

I have advised colleague to say that she is too busy to take on the role and ask if it can be offered out to the team again.

She has asked to chat more about being GC next week as she wants to understand more of whats happening.

Has the LGBTQ training started her in the road to peak transing do you think?

I think it may well have done!

I'd be careful if I were you

Keep talking, show her that there are diverse opinions on diversity and encourage her to do the job in her own way

I remember having to go through compulsory political correctness training in a previous job years ago.

One hypothetical situation we were given was about a client who, for all intents and purposes, looked female. When they asked where the lavatory was, the receptionist told them were the women's lavatory was. In the hypothetical situation, the client (who unbeknownst to the receptionist and for reasons completely unrelated to the appointment) left before the appointment because they were traumatised at being misgendered.

We were also told not to use the phrase 'manila envelopes' as 'manila' had some kind of connection with slavery.

I'd be careful if I were you

Careful in what way?

This is way even though I am L or B or Q (depending on how I wake up), but mostly L, I no longer feel able to be part of the community or to be involved politically/professionally with the community. Women have been even more decentred than they were and gender ideology rules. I would be thrilled if the community were simply for once I cljding the T more, but that's not really what's happening. It's more like having to go along with really questionable identity politics. It sucks and is excluding loads of people. And the people peddling it just don't care that this is happening.

@CosmicCanary
I too would be careful. Challenging the ‘bolloxy centring trans narrative’ could lead to you looking like the bigoted one and affect your career and reputation. I have some colleagues at work, we restrict ourselves to a swift, ‘you got that, you ok?’ glance, nothing so dangerous as an eye roll or visible display of dissent when the cisheteronormative bollox comes out. We don’t even bother to discuss it in private afterwards. We keep our heads so far down we’re doing rolypolys.

Yes I'd go in gently with the explanation. Test the water first and keep it neutral.

Blessed be the fruit. Under his eye.
(Not about you but a comment on where we are currently at with this stuff)

She can just say she doesn't feel the right fit for the role if they question further she can just repeat her feelings

I wont be challenging anything.
I have been GC for 4 years and never discuss my personal opinions at work.

I have known colleague for 6 years and I am god mother to her DD but I never discuss my GC stance with her as she has always being very "live and let live, what harm is there".

I will if she asks point her in the direction of some very brilliant women but as far as challenging anyone or my company that wont be happening.

Why did nobody challenge her about cis men! I don't blame your collegue for declining it, sounds like brain washing to me, there are trans men and women and non transmen and women, cis is a silly made up word.

Fuck, it's scary, isn't it? Anyone read Helen Dunmore's The Betrayal (Russia, early 50s) or Anna Funder's Stasiland? - thought crime, be careful what you say, how you react, who's listening . .

I looked up Manila envelopes, just out of curiosity. They are named for Manila hemp, a kind of fibre from a plant related to bananas. The Phillipines is a major grower of this hemp, hence the plant is named for the capital city.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila_hemp

Slavery was abolished in the Phillipines in 1820, so drawing a relationship between envelopes and slaves is tenuous.

However - there was a form of currency in West Africa called Manilla (note the double which is often associated with the Atlantic slave trade (the Manilla wasn’t coin but a kind of bracelet, according to Wikipedia).

This is not relevant to anything, but that people are delivering training which contains spurious facts and random folklore. It speaks badly to the rigour of program development and the capability of trainers.

Stuff like that would make me question any facts presented in the training program.

It is dreadful how we have to just accept all of this, without any reasonable debate or discussion. It is becoming like a dictatorship, you shall obey, you shall assimilate.

For me, it is trans and non trans or biological women, or trans and non trans men or biological or natal men. Where does this cis word come into it, another made up bollocks to take away women's rights and identity. The truth makes these people very uncomfortable, sorry a 'real man' or biological man is somebody with XY chromosomes, and a 'real woman' or biological woman is somebody with XX chromosomes. If you identify as the opposite sex you are trans plain and simple.

What Aeroflot said.

And it is not doing children any favours telling them they can be the opposite if they want. No they can't. They can be a sort of imitation, that's all. The long-term health implications of hormone treatments are hardly known.

I’ve been talking about protected characteristics at work - making sure that we cover them all off in our thinking as it’s often relevant to what I do, and I figured that keeping stuff lawful really couldn’t be objected to. From something a colleague said last week, I think this has outed me as GC. Luckily, from her reaction she is too, but I find it astounding that pointing to the law is now a radical thing to do.

It is confusing to us Marcipex, so I wonder what young kids in Primary schools make of this, when it is taught in schools to kids who are just figuring out whether they are a boy or girl and what that means. There has been a big increase in referrals to the Tavistock Clinic, since this whole transgender movement came about. Kids who quite vulnerable, who are maybe going through a tough time, and who are easily maliable, are being convinced that they have gender disphoria and that they are the opposite of their biological sex. So are referred to clinics like the Tavistock at a very young age for treatment and hormone therapy.

Back in the 80's I hated girls clothes, toys, and loved playing with boys toys, and dressed in a boys uniform for school. I was happy being a girl, but liked masculine things. My hair was short and spiky and liked playing football with the boys, as the girls thought that I was strange, they were more accepting and fun. Now school would call a meeting with my parents and have me referred to the Tavistock clinic as I obviously have gender dyspohria. In time nothing happened and I was just left to be me, and the masculine phase just disappeared, I am happy being a women who hates dresses and would rather throw on a pair of jeans and t shirt. likes to take part in male dominated sports like Kickboxing. That is fine for a woman or girl to do this, does not mean they want to be a boy.

If these concerns are discussed openly, the radical Trans movement get very upset, and try to silence any reasonable and open discussion, so these get swept under the carpet, and leaves more children open and vulnerable.

For me, it is trans and non trans or biological women, or trans and non trans men or biological or natal men.

For me it is men and women. I don't accept the appropriation of my language or that human beings can change sex. It is vital in a sexist world that women are able to name themselves and we do not require extra descriptors such as biological to do it. If male people no longer wish to be called men, that's fine. But they will need words that do not appropriate my sex to do it.

Back in the 80's I hated girls clothes, toys, and loved playing with boys toys, and dressed in a boys uniform for school. I was happy being a girl, but liked masculine things.

I was similar, but it was in the 50's! My great heroine was George of the Famous Five. I detested dolls and never ever played with one. I wanted adventures, like the boys in all the books. My mother was extremely progressive for her time. She had a middle name added to my birth certificate Josephine so I could be called Jo, and I was for many years. My whole family complied; it wasn't a big thing.
In puberty I began to enjoy being a girl and I love being female, love motherhood and grandmotherhood, and have become quite domestic -- I'm not ashamed of the female stereotypes, was a convinced sahm.

However: I have never worn any makeup or high heels, hardly ever bother with my hair, am not at all interested in fashion.

If I had been a child today they would have rushed to transition me.

For me it is men and women. I don't accept the appropriation of my language or that human beings can change sex. It is vital in a sexist world that women are able to name themselves and we do not require extra descriptors such as biological to do it. If male people no longer wish to be called men, that's fine. But they will need words that do not appropriate my sex to do it.

Me too. I'm not a "non" anything - because that puts me and fellow women into a completely negative class.

it just occurred to me after posting the comment above - it is rightly forbidden (and I will emphasise rightly) to describe a person of colour as "non-white" and that has been accepted is a racist thing to say for many years.

But suddenly - we are expected to accept women being given the 'non-' prefix as perfectly acceptable.

It's not - it's just as bad.

Lamaha same here, though my hero was Dennis the Menace from the Beano Comics, and even got my gran to knit me a Dennis the Menace jumper . I like you, am happy being a woman, and a mother and caring for the children, but I don't wear make up, do my hair, and seem quite plain. There are loads of ladies in their 40's like me, who are like me, as a busy mum to two kids with SN, I haven't got time for the faff of styling my hair everyday, tending to my gel nails or fake tan.

I agree, I am a woman, with XX chromosomes, I am not a cis anything.

Cis is an extremely ugly word.