New Team Member wants us all to do a training course on trans awareness

[Enterthewolves]

I am oddly cross about this, new team member appointed - our manager has emailed to say new team member is gender non binary they/them pronouns and wants us all to do an online course (offered by our employer) to inform us about trans issues.

The arrogance is gobsmacking - shall I ask everyone to do a training course on gender critical beliefs?

The rest of the interview must have been off the charts incredible if the answer to "what will you bring to this role" is "get everyone else to do a course so they can learn to address me in line with my expectations".

This person must be very brilliant and accomplished at the role to overcome that. Try to learn from them, they're doing so much so right.

the example of direct discrimination is a clip of a woman not letting a trans-woman into a female loo at work and the training said that direct discrimination is ‘being treated differently to non-trans men and women’

Well, that’s wrong, isn’t it? Sex is a PC too and Single Sex Exemptions are permitted. A TW could suffer sex discrimination but in that case it would be their natal sex that was the comparator.

and a suggestion that excluding someone from a lunch with another colleague could be discriminatory

This is chilling. It's thought-control.

I think we can guess

Global Butterflies is behind a lot of training and it's important to know who they are and the scope of their influence.

Useful threads: site:mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights "global butterflies"

Informative thread: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4571251-given-that-global-butterflies-is-in-the-news-bbc-breaching-impartiality-this-article-about-who-they-are-and-their-stated-mission-is-a-must-read

And if I recall correctly the police were issuing guidance to schools that it would be regarded as hate crime criminal offence?

I thought trans meant your gender identity was opposite to your sex, e.g. a person of the male sex identifying with a female gender identity & a person of the female sex identifying with a male gender identity. I thought non binary meant that irrespective of your sex you do not consider yourself to have a male or female gender identity or your gender identity fluctuates. Happy to learn more but if non binary was the same as trans why would there be a need for the phrase non binary? Thanks for any info.

Suella Braverman, the Attorney General has just given an excellent speech on the law around single sex spaces, so hopefully it will provide clarity to employers that it is not only trans people of either sex who need to be accommodated, but also women (and men) on the grounds of sex-based needs. "Non binary" is not a legal concept, neither is gender identity.

thought trans meant your gender identity was opposite to your sex, e.g. a person of the male sex identifying with a female gender identity & a person of the female sex identifying with a male gender identity.

People that believe there is such a thing as "non binary" believe that sex/gender is a spectrum. Transgender identity encompasses non binary. But I agree with you it's often used in contradictory and confusing ways.

I feel you seem to think a male who identifies as a woman has more legitimacy than a person who claims not to have a "gender". I don't see a lot of difference personally, they're equally meaningless to me, and represent exactly the same issues when it comes to accommodating their wishes.

I'd be polite, professional, wary and watchful.

Aren't Global Butterflies the lot that lectured women about the menopause 👀😆
You have my sympathies op for the 30 wasted minutes.

Thanks for this. I wouldn't say one is more legitimate than the other, no. I just think of trans- as meaning "on or the other side of" so male sex, female gender would be a transgender woman to me & female sex, male gender would be a transgender man to me. I wouldn't call a non binary person trans as that's not how I had understood transgender but I guess if transgender means transcending gender then that makes more sense to me. Hadn't really thought about this before but wouldn't have assumed a session on transgender equality would deal with non binary people, who I imagine would face different issues to transgender (male to female, female to male) people. But looks like I've got lots to learn...!

Suella Braverman has just made a speech in Parliament and said this

"a right not to suffer discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment is not the same thing as a right of access to facilities provided for the opposite sex."

Plus non binary has absolutely no legal standing whatsoever. You can't discriminate against somebody on the basis of them being non-binary. It's a non-existent legal term.

Stonewall law talking shit again.

I guess if transgender means transcending gender then that makes more sense to me

I think it's what we are really dealing with in our modern understanding. "Transsexual" is considered an outdated term and many people feel that no changes are necessary beyond declaring yourself the opposite sex or just "trans". Look at Jamie Wallace MP (the first trans MP).

"Wallis said he had been “overwhelmed by the kindness and support” in response to his announcement. “I remain the same person I was yesterday,” he added. “For the time being, I will continue to present as I always have and will use he/him/his pronouns.”

amp.theguardian.com/politics/2022/mar/30/tory-mp-jamie-wallis-trans-reveals-rape-ordeal

Isn’t Global Butterflies affiliated with SW? I can’t quite remember…

This is why I automatically reject any application that crosses my desk containing preferred pronouns. It's just not worth the hassle that I know the candidate will visit upon us if they get the job.

No wonder this ideology has ripped through everywhere when everyone just lies down and takes the training.

This.

@datun the training said non binary identities were protected in law - which I thought was odd because how does that meet gender reassignment as a characteristic?

Thanks to everyone sympathising on the waste of time :)

The new team member is female, and their appearance would suggest white British.

No they're not. Ask to see the relevant legislation.

The TRAs have been promoting the idea that non binary is protected in law since an employment tribunal decision found that Jaguar Landrover had discriminated against one of their employees on the grounds of gender reassignment. It's a red herring because the person concerned clearly met the definition of a "transsexual" in that they were a male identifying as a woman.

I'm not going to refuse training offered and i would suggest you don't. Apart from anything else, training on transgender and nonbinary issues should have evolved significantly in recent years. Documents I was given by the NHS in 2014 to support me working in healthcare with trans people absolutely stank of 80s sexism, fetishism and only ever mentioned male people transitioning. As much use as a chocolate teapot to trans people or their healthcare teams or colleagues in 2022, becausein the last 8 years the entire nature of humanity and sex has changed. To protect yourself, you need to know how this person sees the world this year, because you can bet they will spank you to HR if you see things a different way. Ask for an annual update so you can keep track of how they are thinking.

There is a series gap in the market for a course on GC beliefs and the current law as it relates to employers/employees - if such a course existed OP you should of course be requesting that the rest of the team take that in addition to the course this new colleague is demanding you all take (which is ridiculous - since when do team members get to dictate training!!).

Relevant quote from the clarification speech Suella Braverman just gave

If a joint service would be less effective, and it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, it will no doubt put people with the protective characteristic of gender reassignment for example, a trans woman and by that I mean a biological male who identifies as a female at a disadvantage compared to those without that characteristic. But in my view, if the benefit that it confers is sufficient to justify direct discrimination against a whole class of men, it will in almost all circumstances, be sufficient to justify indirect discrimination against a much smaller class of trans women.

In other words single sex women's loos are allowed.

As for the work training, I would now, in the light of recent clarifications refuse to attend.

So now you have done it are you going to refer it to HR to check the legalities of:
Males in female toilets
Colleagues going to lunch being discriminatory
Non-binary as protected characteristic

As none of this is actually true.

“BUT the example of direct discrimination is a clip of a woman not letting a trans-woman into a female loo at work”

and the Attorney General has just said that’s not direct discrimination. In fact, the AG has just said letting a trans-woman into a female loo is indirect discrimination against women.

Might be worth asking the HR Dept if they’ve read a transcript, because they might need to rethink their training providers.

OP there's another thread running on the AG speech currently. There a transcript of the speech on page 3 of the thread. Worth a look.