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 am told it is contrary to my employers policy and i typed the words when identifyable as an employee and the complainant is a tw who holds a lot of sway apparently at the HQ.

Your company policy may be unlawful and contrary to ehrc guidance

Yes I have been.learning this.

However....I cannot afford to be the one who 'tests' this. It's my profession livelihood at stake and I have dependents.

MrPan

I do understand your position.

I met some women at an event last year that had been threatened with a disciplinary for a similar thing. The woman explained that she cannot be discriminated against for her beliefs and they had to drop it. I totally agree with this.

Many people are saying this publically and are not being hauled over the coals by their employers so it will be interesting to hear what they decide to proceed with in your case, do keep us infomed if you don't mind? I am very sorry you are going through this. Being disciplined for stating facts can't actually be a company policy, it's not reasonable no matter how much the TW decides to harrass people about this.

I am not sugesting you should be a test case in anyway, I am just explaining I don't accept this is covered by a legally sound disciplinary policy. Companies can't remove rights with policies.

This is an interesting link.

If you turn this all around to focus on the individual being "accused" you will see what the women I met did.

www.thehrbooth.co.uk/blog/hr-news/is-there-really-freedom-of-speech-in-the-workplace/

It says this.

Even views which aren’t intended to be offensive could be prohibited at work. For example, an individual who holds a particular religious view should refrain from being over-zealous and forcing their opinions onto their colleagues. Doing so could be viewed as harassment and disciplinary action could be pursued as a result.

This TW is forcing their beliefs on to you. You are being harrased by this complainant. It is a perfectly reaosonable belief to have, that transwomen are not women, most of the country thinks this, including a lot of transwomen. The complainant may be offended but they can't harrass and discriminate against you for having different beliefs to them.

I am really sorry that employers are doing this, it's shameful discrimination and harrassment and should not be happening.

Thanks Tousering, and yes it's the 'causing offence'.

However, the expression of any opinion which is offensive, defamatory or discriminatory in any way could lead to disciplinary action against the employee who expressed it. There’s a variety of reasons this could happen; an employer’s code of conduct may specifically cite bullying or offensive comments as misconduct. Alternatively, the individuals who have been affected by the opinions could also raise a grievance.

This is exactly where I am. And it can be a word to others. Gender ID may not be a 2010 protected characteristic but it is included in consideration of 'what may cause offence'.

But if you are offended by having to call a man a woman and step aside for ‘her’, shower and change next to ‘her’ in the office gym changing rooms, pretend that ‘her’ period pains weren’t just bloody nonsense, pussy foot around the areas of pregnancy/menopause/menstruation in case they get ‘hurtz’ and trauma, live in dread of using the term ‘he/his’ by mistake and getting a thump... can’t we be offended and hurty feels too?

Sounds like neither of you are right to be the lead on this. I'm sure someone else will do a better job.

Calling if the focus of the role was not so one-sided then we would both do an excellent job as we have experience of championing minority groups within our company.

But clearly neither of you are right for this role. Sometimes certain parts of a role will require more focus than others. If you are not ok of that then it's best the role is given to someone else who is capable of doing that.

Yes, people can be offended by you expressing your beliefs. But they also can't harrass you with their beliefs.

The law actully states that people holding a GRC as a female are treated as male for some purposes.

You believe this, to be disciplined for believing something that the law also states to be true is discrimination.

I would (not tellng you to) claim discrimination, on the grounds of religion or belief which then also protects me from victimisation, ie, I cannot be punished for defending my beleifs once I have said I am bing discriminated against.

Victimisation is defined in the Equality Act as:

Treating someone badly because they have done a ‘protected act’ (or because you believe that a person has done or is going to do a protected act).

A ‘protected act’ is:

Making a claim or complaint of discrimination (under the Equality Act).
Helping someone else to make a claim by giving evidence or information.
Making an allegation that you or someone else has breached the Act.
Doing anything else in connection with the Act.

can’t we be offended and hurty feels too?

Not if you're female, no. Men's feelings and rights must always come first.

Jeez what is it with the pointless sarcasm all the time. Is that feminism?

@Mamaryllis, that sounds awful.

This is when I'm glad that I'm a sahm, because I'd be unable to hold my thoughts back on that bollocks, and would end up losing my job. Unfortunately, I'm not good at thinking through before I speak .
Also, my face is a dead giveaway to what I think. I've tried hiding it, but can't manage it for very long.

I really despair at the way the world's going. 1984, and The Hand Maids' Tale don't seem so farfetched or outlandish anymore, which is pretty worrying.

Jeez what is it with the pointless sarcasm

My sarcasm is always pointful.

To be clear, Trousering, I am joking and not belittling your comment.

Trousering that’s very interesting and really helpful advice. My company also supports self ID in its policies and has just brought out an anti bullying policy and new stricter procedures. I was concerned to see that they have an updated (lengthy) section where not recognising and accepting an individual’s preferred gender will be treated as harassment. Ok, but If I don’t accept that a person can change sex then I’m worried where that leaves me when I don’t want to share intimate space or same sex facilities with them. From the policy this would end up in immediate disciplinary action. No way I can risk my job (dependents).

I would ask if they will be able to reconcile the need for sex segregation within this policy if women request this. I am happy to not harass someone because of their gender but I also expect my sex to be given equal consideration in the circumstances you describe. I would consider it descrimination against me if a male with gender identity of woman was not excluded for a legitimate aim, ie same sex facilities.

Respecting a gender identity does not automatically mean that a man is to be treated as if he is female for all purposes. Women can reasonably expect males to be be excluded from sex segregated spaces.

Stonewall are advising employers that its best practice to treat men as women for all purpose but its really not and there is no legal obligation to do so.

Thought police, yes. I find it so upsetting being told over 50% of the population are not women anymore, when did we become not women, I hope no-one is busy trying to redefine the dictionary definition of woman, whilst it still stands ....we'll all have to be burning dictionaries and books containing inappropriate references soon.

I am wholly unimpressed at training companies delivering this crap, where are they getting it from? Can you check into their validity and credibility for training delivery and sources?

Honestly, there is so much exxageration and hyperbole here it's hard to have a reasonable discussion. Post after post of needless sarcasm and stupid hyperbole about burning books.

None of that really helps anyone understand how to deal with this situation does it?

It's not hyperbole, its a parallel. It's illegal isnt it to say I'm a woman!!! I'll be called a transphobe if I utter that outside to a trans individual right as this training insists we are ciswomen! That's extreme, and a strong parallel.

I want out of this, I don't want to offend people but when it comes to not even being able to call yourself a woman anymore it's bloody ridiculous, and a lot of people are being told this is law now, and its not.

No, it is not ilegal to say I'm a woman.

Trainers run training sessions, not everything they train is in UK legislation. The majority is simply curent or new practice they want people to consider using. A lot of it gets ignored.

If you utter I am a woman to a trans individual I expect they wouldjsut think you were a bit odd or confrontational as it's a completely uneeded statement to make. Do you regulary go about saying I am a woman to people?

A trans trainer may well use the prefix cis but that's their choice, your choice remains your choice.

A lot of people have not been told they cannot call themselves women and it's the law, firstly it's not the law, and secondly, the desire to use inclusive language is at worst foolish and misguided, there is no imminent book burning behind it.

If a trans trainer calls you a "cis" woman, and you object to that and ask them not to do so again...? Where does that leave you?

Their choice? So my choice is to call a person with a penis ‘he’ - MY choice or down we have one?

Where does that leave you?

Well, if you object you are obviously a bigot because women are what men say they are.

(Rolls eyes)