Page 2 | Cabinet Office scraps 'gender inclusion' workshops after complaints from civil servants

IwantToRetire · 2022-12-17T23:33:17+00:00

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 https://uk.news.yahoo.com/cabinet-office-scraps-gender-inclusion-200113275.html

aseriesofstillimages · 18/12/2022 16:03

NitroNine · 18/12/2022 02:10

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).

You may already be aware, but the head of a:gender is herself an intersex person.

She has Swyer Syndrome, so appeared physically female at birth, but when she failed to start menstruating, investigations showed she had undeveloped gonads that had to be surgically removed due to cancer risk. The doctors didn’t actually tell her until she was in her 20s that she had XY chromosomes.

She knows many other intersex people (or as you would say, people with DSDs, though I know she prefers the term ‘intersex variations’), so is probably a reasonable judge of how to support intersex people within the civil service.

My best friend’s daughter has an intersex variation so this is a matter close to my heart.

PermanentTemporary · 18/12/2022 16:28

In which case... why say that people can change sex (as in the original link)? She must be more aware of the medical issues and the fact that nobody changes sex than most.

There is apparently a slightly greater number of people with a DSD than average who identify as trans, which is not surprising. But it's only a very slight difference I believe. The two things are not the same, and sticking them together is not in my view likely to improve appropriate support to either group.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 18/12/2022 16:55

"She knows many other intersex people (or as you would say, people with DSDs, though I know she prefers the term ‘intersex variations’), so is probably a reasonable judge of how to support intersex people within the civil service".

Interesting that despite this, women are dismissed and called bigots for being "reasonable judges" on how to support women & girls and keep us safe. Women who state with confidence that the majority of women prefer not to undress & share showers, changing rooms, hospital wards and prison cells - let alone handing over women's sports - with born males are apparently transphobic. With the head of a:gender apparently leading the cries according to these revelations.

Funny how the demands for respect only ever go one way - in favour of those pushing "absolute 'unscientifically nonsensical' garbage" 🤔

Smurhee · 18/12/2022 18:58

In the online Yammer discussion mentioned in another thread about the new Civil Service gender critical network, there were links provided to explanations of DSDs which were supposed to demonstrate that sex is a spectrum, but the links all said that each syndrome or condition was only found in males, or only found in females. The person who posted it as a gotcha didn't seem to realise it completely undermined their stance.

A:gender seem to have a bit of a stranglehold on CS diversity and inclusion narrative.

aseriesofstillimages · 18/12/2022 19:50

PermanentTemporary · 18/12/2022 16:28

In which case... why say that people can change sex (as in the original link)? She must be more aware of the medical issues and the fact that nobody changes sex than most.

There is apparently a slightly greater number of people with a DSD than average who identify as trans, which is not surprising. But it's only a very slight difference I believe. The two things are not the same, and sticking them together is not in my view likely to improve appropriate support to either group.

I think her perspective is that sex is complicated. There are people who would say she’s a man, because she has XY chromosomes, even though she appeared to have normal female biology at birth, and that led to her being raised as a girl. She has in common with trans people that she will be taking sex hormones for life (though of course in her case it’s for different reasons - because her body doesn’t make them). She has in common with many trans women that she is unusually tall for a woman, due to her Y chromosome.

When you say “no one changes sex”, what exactly do you mean? I agree that no one can change their chromosomes, and no one born with a penis can make it the case that they were born with a vagina, and no one born with a vagina can make it so that they were born with a penis. And with the current state of medical technology (and that in the foreseeable future) no one born biologically male can have a functioning uterus or ovaries, and no one born biologically female can have a functioning penis or testicles. Also, no one ‘raised as a girl’ can change the past so that they were ‘raised as a boy’ (or vice versa).

But there are many physical characteristics associated with sex that can be altered, by medical intervention.

Theeyeballsinthesky · 18/12/2022 20:46

MrsOvertonsWindow · 18/12/2022 16:55

"She knows many other intersex people (or as you would say, people with DSDs, though I know she prefers the term ‘intersex variations’), so is probably a reasonable judge of how to support intersex people within the civil service".

Interesting that despite this, women are dismissed and called bigots for being "reasonable judges" on how to support women & girls and keep us safe. Women who state with confidence that the majority of women prefer not to undress & share showers, changing rooms, hospital wards and prison cells - let alone handing over women's sports - with born males are apparently transphobic. With the head of a:gender apparently leading the cries according to these revelations.

Funny how the demands for respect only ever go one way - in favour of those pushing "absolute 'unscientifically nonsensical' garbage" 🤔

Yeah odd that isn’t it. Women aren’t ever allowed to be experts on being women

aseriesofstillimages · 18/12/2022 21:37

Theeyeballsinthesky · 18/12/2022 20:46

Yeah odd that isn’t it. Women aren’t ever allowed to be experts on being women

Show quote history

Unlikely intersex people, women aren’t are minority. We’re literally half the population.

PermanentTemporary · 18/12/2022 22:05

I would say that sexual development, rather than sex, is complex in humans, which is why her medical history is complex. Chromosomes can't be changed. Gonads, internal sexual structures and genitals aren't changed though they can be surgically removed. Hormone levels can be changed. That's about it. Post puberty that will have an impact on function and on health, which will differ depending on your sex, but not the development that's happened up until that time.

For those who believe that if she has a Y chromosome she must be a man; they're wrong. But she is exceptional. Maybe 6 or 7 girls with Swyer syndrome born in the UK each year; maybe 30 boys born with de la Chapelle syndrome. That's incredibly rare.

aseriesofstillimages · 18/12/2022 22:17

PermanentTemporary · 18/12/2022 22:05

I would say that sexual development, rather than sex, is complex in humans, which is why her medical history is complex. Chromosomes can't be changed. Gonads, internal sexual structures and genitals aren't changed though they can be surgically removed. Hormone levels can be changed. That's about it. Post puberty that will have an impact on function and on health, which will differ depending on your sex, but not the development that's happened up until that time.

For those who believe that if she has a Y chromosome she must be a man; they're wrong. But she is exceptional. Maybe 6 or 7 girls with Swyer syndrome born in the UK each year; maybe 30 boys born with de la Chapelle syndrome. That's incredibly rare.

What is it that makes her a woman though?

Ofcourseshecan · 18/12/2022 22:24

Excellent news. And the more people speak up, the more will find the courage to speak up too.

What a shame and disgrace, though, that no employers or media sources on the left dare to question the trans dogma.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 18/12/2022 22:26

aseriesofstillimages · 18/12/2022 21:37

Unlikely intersex people, women aren’t are minority. We’re literally half the population.

Show quote history

And yet she wields so much power in advocating for half the population to be renamed and our rights removed in favour of her tiny group. Odd isn't it?

PermanentTemporary · 18/12/2022 23:00

As I understand it, women with Swyer syndrome have reproductive structures developed around the production and gestation of large gametes, though due to their variation of sexual development they don't have functioning gonads to produce them. Why, what do you think makes her a woman?

aseriesofstillimages · 18/12/2022 23:26

PermanentTemporary · 18/12/2022 23:00

As I understand it, women with Swyer syndrome have reproductive structures developed around the production and gestation of large gametes, though due to their variation of sexual development they don't have functioning gonads to produce them. Why, what do you think makes her a woman?

I understood that in the case of Swyer syndrome the foetus is only prevented from developing male biology by a genetic mutation, which prevents the foetal gonadal tissue from developing into testes, and as a result of that the foetus does not become masculinised as it should.

I don’t think there’s one definitive factor that makes her a woman, the things that cumulatively make her a woman are that she was born with female reproductive organs (though not fully developed) and genitalia, she was raised as a girl, and she identifies as a woman.

DdraigGoch · 19/12/2022 02:53

PermanentTemporary · 18/12/2022 13:22

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.

Did those staff at LFB need training not to do such offensive things? They weren't making a mistake, they knew what they were doing, what it meant, and they did it anyway, precisely because they knew that it would cause distress.

Equality training is for when you didn't know that what you were doing was wrong. If you know that something is wrong but are contemplating doing it anyway, that's where the threat of a disciplinary should stop you.

ResisterRex · 19/12/2022 07:08

LFB used Stonewall, it seems:

twitter.com/luluchops1/status/1596598696766242816?s=46&t=1s5U6jh1ws_4j0UqaSybow

twitter.com/luluchops1/status/1532112850419912705?s=46&t=1s5U6jh1ws_4j0UqaSybow

WarriorN · 19/12/2022 07:12

PermanentTemporary · 18/12/2022 12:52

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

Me too; it's quite sick to think about how these fantasists are using real medical conditions as a tool to coerce people.

Some types of dsd lead to cognitive and physical difficulties. It's disgusting that their focus is genitals.

WarriorN · 19/12/2022 07:31

It makes no difference if the head of this org has a dsd/ VSD.

It's got zero to do with trans.

WildishBambino · 19/12/2022 10:59

I note that A:Gender's own website says it is for people who are trans and intersex - not as you would expect intersex and trans. DSDs are clearly secondary and you can self-identify.

Datun · 19/12/2022 11:24

WarriorN · 19/12/2022 07:12

Me too; it's quite sick to think about how these fantasists are using real medical conditions as a tool to coerce people.

Some types of dsd lead to cognitive and physical difficulties. It's disgusting that their focus is genitals.

Show quote history

If I recall correctly, it was GIRES who tried to get the intersex society to align with them. Their particular point of interest was for surgery, apparently.

The narrative being that people with a DSD will often require surgery - which is the same as teenage girls who want their healthy breasts removed and middle-aged men who want feminising surgery.

Clearly GIRES thought they could legitimise their campaigning for surgery, by aligning, or using, DSDs.

They put relentless pressure on the Intersex society, who pushed back. GIRES wanted them to join them on Panorama, I think it was. In the end the Intersex society has to publish their umpteenth refusal letter so the public could see, quite clearly, how they did not want to align with GIRES, despite continuous pressure.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3400673-intersex-and-trans?reply=81979955

A woman on here talked about a DSD affecting a member of her family, which was potentially fatal and how disgusted she was that these conditions were being used by trans organisations to claim men should be using women's facilities.

These people treat everything as a self-serving resource. Women, everywhere, raped women, incarcerated women, sick women, pregnant women, breastfeeding women, and anyone with a DSD.

aseriesofstillimages · 19/12/2022 13:22

Datun · 19/12/2022 11:24

If I recall correctly, it was GIRES who tried to get the intersex society to align with them. Their particular point of interest was for surgery, apparently.

The narrative being that people with a DSD will often require surgery - which is the same as teenage girls who want their healthy breasts removed and middle-aged men who want feminising surgery.

Clearly GIRES thought they could legitimise their campaigning for surgery, by aligning, or using, DSDs.

They put relentless pressure on the Intersex society, who pushed back. GIRES wanted them to join them on Panorama, I think it was. In the end the Intersex society has to publish their umpteenth refusal letter so the public could see, quite clearly, how they did not want to align with GIRES, despite continuous pressure.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3400673-intersex-and-trans?reply=81979955

A woman on here talked about a DSD affecting a member of her family, which was potentially fatal and how disgusted she was that these conditions were being used by trans organisations to claim men should be using women's facilities.

These people treat everything as a self-serving resource. Women, everywhere, raped women, incarcerated women, sick women, pregnant women, breastfeeding women, and anyone with a DSD.

Show quote history

That’s an interesting thread, thanks. QuietContraryMary sets out the detail very well in relation the problems involved in discerning sex in the case of some intersex conditions.

Justtoshare · 19/12/2022 13:27

MrsOvertonsWindow · 18/12/2022 11:01

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

Show quote history

This. What took them so long given that Johnson/Truss had rumbled the Stonewall Gravy Train sometime before? Lack of political will and wilfull ignorance?

Justtoshare · 19/12/2022 13:36

DdraigGoch · 19/12/2022 02:53

Did those staff at LFB need training not to do such offensive things? They weren't making a mistake, they knew what they were doing, what it meant, and they did it anyway, precisely because they knew that it would cause distress.

Equality training is for when you didn't know that what you were doing was wrong. If you know that something is wrong but are contemplating doing it anyway, that's where the threat of a disciplinary should stop you.

Show quote history

Exactly they were doing it despite knowing it was bullying unprofessional behaviour. It has nothing to do with needing more 'Equalities training' which they undoubtedly had already attended.
Do not employ nasty violent people is the solution. All jobs should have minimum behavioural standards surely?. That should not however extend to thought and speech control as it currently is tending to?

nilsmousehammer · 19/12/2022 14:07

I would dearly love to see the breakdown of man hours, and the cost of not only the training itself but the cost of the staff paid hours doing it, dedicated to training on each of the nine strands of diversity and equality in the Equality Act by public servants in the past five years.

As I will open the book now that the cost and hours dedicated to dodgy, highly biased, religious theory related to one strand has massively and highly inappropriately dominated. And the general public should know a) what tax payer money has been spent on this, b) that it was less awareness than political brain washing and highly inappropriate for many reasons discussed on this thread, and c) that the term 'diversity' is now a very tiny fig leaf on a really massive amount of cock and bull.

orangejuggling · 19/12/2022 18:52

I was in a department a couple of years ago which advertised training from a:gender. A colleague did the training, then came back and excitedly talked about the genderbread person poster. I could not believe they were serious. Interestingly, other people were quiet - a bit of support but mostly silence.