Cabinet Office scraps 'gender inclusion' workshops after complaints from civil servants

[IwantToRetire]

The Cabinet Office has scrapped a series of “gender inclusion” workshops after civil servants complained they were “scientifically nonsensical”.

The sessions, run by a:gender, which describes itself as a “trans and intersex” cross-government staff network, had been delivered across a number of Whitehall departments.

But they have now been stopped after concerns were raised with ministers and senior mandarins about the contents of the workshops. ...

The letter of complaint, which was sent to Simon Case, the Cabinet Secretary, and Matthew Rycroft, the Cabinet Office permanent secretary, contained a series of testimonies from civil servants who had attended the sessions.

This included one who said they were “shaking with distress” afterwards because it was “scientifically so nonsensical and bizarre”.

Another said they found the contents “awful and upsetting” while a third said they felt the trainers were “tantamount to bullying and preachy at the same time”. ...

Article in the Telegraph reprinted by yahoo news uk.news.yahoo.com/cabinet-office-scraps-gender-inclusion-200113275.html

“scientifically so nonsensical and bizarre”

Pretty much sums up gender identity ideology.

Amazing

well done to the Women’s Rights Network

good news. shame that only the right wing press is reporting it. left wing people are being significantly under-informed about these things due to the capture of the left wing press.

These people really aren't too bright. Or completely binded by ideology.

It a shame they are scrapping them. I would let them run everywhere in the current climate - would peak so many people.

There will be tweets......

There aren’t great (publicly available) stats on how many people in the UK have a DSD, but the charity DSD Families say on their FAQ page that:
DSD affects around one in every 4,500 births, in other words, around 130 babies in the UK every year. But since DSD is a collection of different conditions, some variations are more common than others.
So perhaps a population of around 10,000. Of which 2340 are children. Perhaps 1500 are retired; and arguably 390 will be at university & thus doing retail-type work. Just how many of the remaining 5770ish people in the UK with DSDs do we think are i. employed by the Civil Service & ii. inclined to announce this incredibly private fact about their health to colleagues? Of course, there is a trend for people to self-ID as “intersex”, mostly courtesy of attempts to broaden the definition of what constitutes a DSD. Those shenanigans mean that DSD Families’ FAQ includes:
Q. We are a media organisation and have been contacted by an individual with ‘intersex’ who'd like to raise awareness. Can you advise us?
A. We believe the media has a really important role to play when it comes to helping society understand DSD, and in principle we are always happy to help and to partner with you in producing a good article. We strongly recommend that you involve a medical professional in any work you do.
However, all too often, these issues are approached in a sensationalist way and rather than promoting an understanding, media articles have often ended up hurting and upsetting those who live with these conditions and those who care for them. This makes it more difficult to find families who are prepared to talk about their experiences.
Sometimes articles use inaccurate, medically incorrect, or outdated language. We know, better than most, how difficult it is to express information about this complex matter – but we insist in helping you to get it right.We will therefore always seek copy-approval prior to agreeing to formally take part.
If you wish to contact us to explore a story or a documentary centred around an individual, we would need to know what condition the individual has (Intersex or DSD won’t do). This is so we can understand the perspective that individual wishes to bring to the table. We would also wish to know whether that individual is receiving medical (endocrine) and psychological support from an expert team in the UK.

Emphasis above is mine, but it’s clear they’re (rightly!) doing all they can to keep articles about DSDs accurate & informative - and that now has to include stopping wafty vague claims about being “intersex” being made by people who do not have DSDs. “Intersex” has become another label people claim (via self-ID) to score more points in Oppression Top Trumps. Obviously this is harmful to people who actually have DSDs; in the same way as it’s harmful for other vulnerable groups to have people claim to belong to them & then use that assumed identity as a shield.

It seems highly likely that a:gender has been engaging in false teaming, particularly given the use of “intersex”. What about Civil Servants with DSDs who are keenly aware of biological reality? Clearly a:gender isn’t interested in representing their views/engaging with them. Moreover (again, emphasis mine), this from the DSD Families FAQ seems relevant:
Some LGBT groups have seen that just as they are defined with reference to sex and gender, so are people with DSD. By adding an ‘I’ they have invited people who identify as Intersex to join their powerful collective and receive their support.
Some Intersex advocacy or activist groups welcome this and see being part of this movement as helpful in combatting possible discrimination on the grounds of their 'Intersex traits'. Other intersex advocates welcome the LGBT movement but reject the direct overlay of an LGBT set of priorities that could divert funding from Intersex groups’ aims. Some condition specific support groups feel that the adding of ‘I’ to LGBT complicates rather than promotes understanding.
As a website for parents we are meeting people whom are mostly new to their child’s condition and who have usually not developed a sense of themselves in relation to Intersex.This means that to focus on Intersex might bypass the people we want to reach at this early stage. We are talking about other important things that may be different to the priorities that LGBT groups identify as of main concern.
Government bodies and funding bodies must take this into careful consideration. It is vital that future investment for children and young people with a difference of sex development is focused on the rights of and support for these individuals and their families.

Although a:gender are a staff network, they were also providing training to other staff - & may do so again after review. If they are making claims that are not only ascientific but actively harmful to group they claim to represent, how can they be allowed to continue? Is there any kind of mechanism to force a more thorough review of it as a network? Because perhaps the Civil Service is the UK’s largest employer of people with DSDs; and staff would choose to network with colleagues on the basis of “having a DSD” despite the fact they have [access to] long-established specialised support networks & if they have a rare DSD it’s likely they’d not find more than most basic level of shared experience; and the conflation of “intersex” with trans where convenient but otherwise consistent prioritisation of the latter over the former wouldn’t bother people with a lifetime/life from adolescence onwards of having their medical condition misunderstood & misrepresented… but I think there are some very serious questions to be asked - & answered - about the work this network was doing & who it actually represented. If they made false claims about being a group for civil servants with DSDs, especially if any funding was allocated to them on that basis, it’s an absolute scandal. And while obviously I can’t say that’s what’s happened & I’m certainly not targeting any individuals here; I hope I’ve demonstrated clearly enough here why my suspicions are not unreasonable (ie the numbers do not add up & it doesn’t align with stance leading UK charities for people with DSDs).

Surely the intervention of MPs isn't insignificant here?:

"A number of MPs - including Sir Robert Buckland, Andrew Lewer and John Penrose - also complained to ministers and the Cabinet Office about the workshops after being contacted by their constituents."

Good. It's good to see them taking this seriously and not sitting on their hands, claiming "both sides" and it's "complicated" etc etc.

A:Gender

sooooo these are civil servants training other civil servants & no one quality checked to make sure their training was presenting factually correct information?

If facts and accuracy was a criteria, there's be no gender woo woo training anywhere and a massive gravy train would dry up.

This included one who said they were “shaking with distress” afterwards because it was “scientifically so nonsensical and bizarre”.

I normally get a bit eye rolly at expressions of shaking with distress when it's to do with things like safe spaces and not wanting to hear facts.

But in this case, I'm not surprised. The utter drivel would be quite disturbing to have to listen to in an official environment like that.

Totally agree Datun. I've sat through similar (Gendered Intelligence for one) and they are upsetting. I can believe the account given.

I absolutely relate to the 'shaking with distress'.

Have been aware of all this (the threory/these trainings) for years, but none of that prepared me for the physiological response I got when faced with it in a training in person.

i am not a civil servant, but in a professional arena that really, really should know better.

Like a poster in another thread so perfectly described- it is like being in the body snatchers, or stepford wives. It was chilling and dystopian.

The utter bizarreness of things being said that totally go against what we as professionals were normally trained in.
Not just hearing all the theory actually presented as unquestionable facts, but being surrounded by people nodding and smiling along and taking it seriously. Just accepting it.

The shock of how uncritical intelligent people were being in their thinking.

Being in the midst of what felt like gaslighting, and overwhelmed by so many challenges that could be made, and feeling isolated in your awareness, so that you are unable to speak.

It sounds hyperbolic, but it is like the silent scream in a nightmare.
Horrible.

I'm so glad this has been raised.

Not just hearing all the theory actually presented as unquestionable facts, but being surrounded by people nodding and smiling along and taking it seriously. Just accepting it.

Yes. It's the sheer powerlessness. Coupled with hearing absolute 'unscientifically nonsensical' garbage, that you know is responsible for eliminating women's rights and mutilating children. It's the frustration, coupled with the helplessness and the knowledge that other people are simply not grasping it.

Distressful indeed. And I too am bloody glad that this is now coming to light. Every single one of these organisations should be subjected to the most forensic scrutiny.

All this toxic stuff is being foisted on even the youngest of children in schools - and they have no knowledge / maturity or experience to dismiss it.

Have bookmarked your post @NitroNine as it's not one I want to lose sight of. Thank you.

I can well imagine shaking with distress at or after one of these mind-bending sessions sanctioned by one's employer.

You'd have to sit quietly, ask no 'awkward' questions for fear of losing your job, smile and nod along for the same reasons. Meanwhile the adrenaline would be increasing in your bloodstream as the anger mounted. That adrenaline is going to go somewhere, manifest in some way. Hence the shaking. It will eventually cause stress-related disease.

It will eventually cause stress-related disease.

And bloody tongues from having to bite them

Urgh. I hate that this dumb stuff is staining all equalities work.

The article goes on to talk about 'days wasted' on equalities training at the London Fire Service. The same service where staff members put sausages in a Muslim colleague's pocket, or shoved their nose into a woman's crotch and shouted that she smelled of 'blood and shit'?

That service desperately needs hard hitting equalities focused management. It probably doesn't need insane fiction based sessions from a:gender about 'intersex'. These things are not the same.

Am glad you found it useful/interesting/helpful @PermanentTemporary - I was just so struck by the description of a:gender that I decided to look at the numbers; & while I opted to (there not being stats available for the adult population) calculate for a population to age 80 with no mortality to that point, so it really is an estimate, it’s an estimate that’s not going to be out by a huge [raw] number given the population size involved.

It’s very clear that people claiming to be “intersex” has become a real problem. That’s the only reason for the bit in the FAQs about specific diagnosis & receiving treatment from British teams. The self-diagnosed wanting to talk over people whose lives are genuinely massively impacted by something is such a depressingly common theme.

I’m wary of the dustbin fire approach to all equality training. We hear very little about disability awareness at work. We do need to ensure our services are inclusive and take account of different people's needs. We need to rebalance effort, not ditch it all.

@BettyFilous
Actual EDI would be good & useful. It seems to be a common theme that training regarding disabilities simply doesn’t happen - which might explain how in 2022 we still have businesses turning people with guide dogs (who are clearly visibly working guide dogs in their harnesses & everything) away because “no dogs allowed” 🤦‍♀️ The fact that adaptations needed for different disabilities might conflict with each other isn’t generally well understood (eg optimum lighting for for visually impaired people vs D/deaf people vs autistic people); & just basics like “treat people’s wheelchairs as an extension of their body” (ie don’t touch them without permission & certainly don’t go trundling people around as if they’re abandoned shopping trolleys) need to be hammered into the population as a whole. Possibly literally.

One size fits noone trainings are of no use - they need careful targeting to be relevant so people are learning things that are of use.

This ^^

It's beyond disturbing. It's required participation in extreme lies, with penalties for failing to pretend along convincingly.

The impact on women's mental health in being coerced to collude in this to their own oppression, particularly if you're aware of the context of the death threats, the rape threats, the glee and overt misogyny and homophobia that is always front and centre on social media? It's severe.

The fact that the London Fire Brigade and the Metropolitan police have both been Stonewall champions goes a long way to explain why genuine diversity issues have taken a back seat with both now being in "special measures" after stream of the most awful revelations about criminal sexual offences, sexist, racist & disablist behaviour by some of their employees - none of which have been effectively tackled by their managers. There is however a torrent of rainbow covered vehicles, lanyards, crossings, policies and twitter accounts evident in both institutions 🙄

I was looking at a questionnaire today where "intersex" was a gender option you can choose.

DSDs are actual medical conditions. FFS

Agreed.

But what we have now is one very small, self entitled group riding rough shot over everyone else's right.

All it does is make people less understanding, less supporting if critical diversity schemes.