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?

.

Cis is an extremely ugly word.

True. I have always refused to use it, though most of my liberal feminist writer friends use it all the time -- virtue signalling as to how open-minded they are, how inclusive. I've always refused to use it. It was great to peak a few months ago and find that other women detest the word!

MrPan it’s rather rude to placemark threads like this - euther comtribute or put the thread on your watch list. A journalist or a transactivist?

Where does the word 'cis' actually derive from? Is it short for something?

I wonder DrinkFeck might well be a DM journalist wanting to fill up pages of the DM on this slow Saturday, after MM stories have run out of steam.

Cis isn't even a whole word on its own. It's a prefix. It makes no sense without something on the end of it. Much like the prefix anti-. You can be anti-establishment, anti-cruelty or even anti-banana if you so wish. But you cannot simply be anti. That's not a thing. Nor is cis.

I had an argument about cis with a (female) person I used to be friends with, before I’d even heard about self ID, transing kids and all the other batshitery. I say a person because I don’t know how they identify nowadays, it was as a man a couple of years ago. They got rather exasperated that I didn’t accept this new prefix.I’ve been called less than a woman all my life though, called a man, it, patronisingly referred to as ‘a bit different’ and when being introduced to people both my mother and sister have pointedly said ‘this is Nat, She doesn’t really do girly, (gesticulates) do you Nat.’ So I’ve got used to telling people to do one when they’ve suggested I’m not really a woman. It’s just another attempt to undermine me as a whole, valid person to me so I’ve never seen any reason to be kind or accepting about it.

Nat isn’t my real name btw.

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

Oh, I agree. I just rolled my eyes on got on with it as it was compulsory training for all staff.

I would now openly query and object to the cis by saying how I actually found it offensive as it makes huge assumptions about me based on my professional work appearance and me as a person.

And it's offensive to be labelled something I don't agree with.

I'm not actually that bovvered but if they're going to be the thought and speech police then I will point out the lunacy.

Also, I'd be re reading all the gumpf out loud and replacing all the 'genders' with 'gender stereotypes.' Pointing out sex is different to gender.

If there really was someone working in the company who was any of these things, I'd be polite and respectful but this training is being handed out as law. It's not law. The only protection in law is a transsexual.

None of this post is particularly helpful to the op, sorry, just adding my indignation on your behalf.

It's also nice to feel I can say this stuff as a year ago or more I was still confused by it all. Had the gut feeling but not the theory or words.

My preferred noun is woman.

Please respect my preferred noun.

Its a pity women can’t just march to HR and tell them that they have been traumatised, brutalised and fear for their lives because of being mispronouned as bloody ‘cis’. Send in a man in a sarong with the same complaint and it will be a different story.

Colleague of mine went to a fair thingy, and received some lgbT "training" (from a group that works young people in the London area. ) They basically had to think of what they identified as, write it on a post it note, and stick it to themselves. The person in charge (who was a knob apparently) then told them to imagine they were in a place where non of the things they identified as, were allowed.

She could only think of "women" to write, but anyone writing their biological sex was told off. She said it was painful. She wrote woman, and thought fuck em. Lol
Totally peaked her.

I’m so glad that my work place doesn’t indulge in this guff.

@Katvonfelttipeyebrows - idve written ‘fucked off’

fekko
I'm disgusted! You should have wrote:
Penguin
Lord
PhD
And FUCK OFF

For me, it is trans and non trans or biological women, or trans and non trans men or biological or natal me Woah here Nelly!

You mean you would describe a man as not being a transman?

A woman as not being a transwoman?

Using a teeny % of the population as the basis of a definition?

OK...so why not men are non Cebu Flowerpeckers and women are Mauritius Parakeets? Those birds are truly rare andthe statements would be true!

Defining things by what they are not is a fast way to madness!

Cis is totally offensive as it means you accept and identify with all the dated sexist stereotypes inflicted on women by society. I am not cis anything- I’m simply a woman - and a gender critical feminist one at that!

CuriousaboutNo, a person that was born a Female and identifies as man, is a transman as they are still biologically Female and nothing can change that, and a person who was born Male and identifies as a Woman, is a transwoman as they are still biologically Male. The term woman on it is own denotes a person who is biologically Female, and the term man on it's own is a person who is biologically Male.

Honestly I don’t see the need for differentiation. If you are woman then why do you need to put yourself as trans and why do you need to differentiate natal ‘cis’ Women. Either you are all women and therefore all the same or you aren’t. You can’t ssy that trans women are women but then insist that people differentiate between cis and trans. Decide.

I was reading with interest the Cheshire police candidate who was turned down because he was a straight white guy (although a very strong candidate). The reason found was that because they wanted more minority candidates - race, religion, sex, orientation and GENDER.

So we really need more WPC Lovelies on the force do we? Cracking all those misgender Crimes and Misdemeanours?

a person that was born a Female and identifies as man, is a transman as they are still biologically Female and nothing can change that, and a person who was born Male and identifies as a Woman, is a transwoman as they are still biologically Male. The term woman on it is own denotes a person who is biologically Female, and the term man on it's own is a person who is biologically Male. Let me pick at that a moment! I fear I missed something an or* in your original post

Sorry, that bolding failed Aeroflotgirl Thanks for coming back. I did miss a word, an or in the post I quoted.

You had me worried there. I had never had you down as one of those "Men and Not Men" posters

I'll have to save the rare birds for a truly woke poster!

Oh ok, Curious I thought you disagreed with what I was saying, and believed that those who are biologically male and who identified as woman are 'real women' and vice versa. I just fail to see how those biological males, who still retain their sex organs and who identify as women see themselves as 'real women' the same with biological woman. There have been titles in the media of 'pregnant man', no it is a woman who is pregnant, as non trans men are unable to to get pregnant as they lack the correct physiology.

The term 'real man' or 'real women' involves having the correct chromosomes for that sex.