Mandatory training referring to gender not sex

[Frustrated1234]

Work for a NHS Trust. Equality & Diversity training (which is mandatory for all staff) heavily references the Equality Act (understandably) and the 9 protected characteristics. Apparently gender is one of the 9 characteristics, not sex. Training then refers to gender throughout.

I emailed relevant department to point out the mistake and have been told gender and sex are the same thing.

Just want to scream. And share my frustration. I’m pretty sure I knew the difference from taking GCSE sociology as a teenager many years ago.

Email them back. Say they are not the same thing legally. Say they leave themselves open to legal challenge and you are just trying to help them avoid costly litigation in future for sex discrimination. Don’t let it lie.

Refer them to this (or similar)?
service-manual.nhs.uk/content/inclusive-language

^When to use "sex" and when to use "gender"
Many people think that sex and gender are the same but they mean different things. It's important to be clear about the difference.^

(Also has definitions of sex and gender)

I did the same thing at work - pointed out the error and their misrepresentation of the EA.

I work for LA. The Equality and Diversity training refers to gender and even lists this as a protected characteristic FFS.

Two weeks on and I'm still waiting for a reply from HR.

I have set a reminder to follow this up mid week.

Email them back. It’s clear in the legislation that it is sex.

How do people like that hold down jobs, teaching simple information but getting the basic facts wrong? And refusing to correct mistakes that could get their employers sued?

Please do email them back OP. I’m so sick of this and we need to call it out each and every time.

for the frustration caused.

Tell them they're not allowed to change the wording of an Act of Parliament. It takes another Act of Parliament to do that.

I emailed relevant department to point out the mistake and have been told gender and sex are the same thing.

Why are HR departments so unutterably stupid about this? I had to tell our HR Business Partner who supports my faculty's EDI committee, that in the terms of reference, it should be 'sex' not 'gender.'

I assumed that he might have read the preamble at least to the relevant equality legislation. It's not rocket science or post-structural philosophy.

I wonder what other laws they go around changing the wording of just cos? I mean seriously what is wrong with people? If the people who wrote the GRA meant ‘gender’ not ‘sex’, that is what they would have written ffs

Equality act!! Not GRA

email them back and ask why, if they're the same thing, are there only two sexes but 100+ genders

Thanks everyone. I just get so frustrated, articulation goes out the window and I just want to throw stuff.
It take a certain kind of erm, ‘confidence’ to change the wording on an actual law. The mind boggles.
Sorry to hear that others are facing the same situation.

They think it’s a twee euphemism. Send them a link to the regulations.

Send them a link to this:
www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights

I have just been reading the NHS service manual for inclusive language, as linked above, and came across this bit:

Sexuality
We use language about sexuality when it's helpful to signpost or help people get the health information and access to treatment they need.

For example, when we're talking about specific sexual health services or sexual health content, we use words like:

lesbian
gay
bisexual
Men who have sex with men (MSM includes men who may not identify as gay)

Surely, men who have sex with men are gay? I don't understand. Or can you identify out of homosexuality?

My understanding is that MSM is a bigger category than gay men, as it also includes bisexual men, men who identify as pansexual or other alternative identities, men who don't identify with any label, and men who identify as heterosexual but still have sex with men. The latter might be in denial of their sexual identity, or who compartmentalise it in some way.

@AssassinatedBeauty

My understanding is that MSM is a bigger category than gay men, as it also includes bisexual men, men who identify as pansexual or other alternative identities, men who don't identify with any label, and men who identify as heterosexual but still have sex with men. The latter might be in denial of their sexual identity, or who compartmentalise it in some way.

Thank you, that makes sense.

Glad I'm not alone in this. We had an email sent to our company (large corporate) referring to "sex assigned at birth" from someone in HR. This was cut and pasted from a Stonewall website, ffs. I pointed out the error and got a response saying it was "complicated".

No, it really isn't .

I've had to email senior HR today about it as we're due to have a talk next week from Diversity Role Models. I've emailed some links regarding their, er, output with links from Safe Schools Alliance and Transgender Trend and saying that I hope we'll be complying with the law and the EA 2010. Am waiting for a response.

The annoying thing is that we've had some informative and interesting emails about LGBT+ history etc which have been well received by staff.

MSM has been used for a long time as some will not identify as gay but it's important for health screening and risk assessment that it's the having sex with men bit that gets picked up on.