Slightly Concerning Course Content

[FanFckingTastic]

I've had to complete a course at work around discrimination etc.

As part of the course, the topic of gender identity is discussed. The course content says 'It's important to remember that if someone is trans saying "she used to be a man" is not accurate. Trans women are women, and they've never not been a woman. Their gender identity just doesn't align with the sex they were assigned at birth'

The course asks for us to confirm our understanding of this, along with other things. Does anyone have advice? I'm conscious that I have to tread carefully but I feel very uncomfortable....

It really annoys me that there is so little content on colleagues with disabilities or ageism none of which seem to get any attention. I am sure if we had a tenth of the training focused on people with vision and hearing or mobility problems we would improve the lives of many people and allow them to participate in the workplace - friend taught me some very simple British sign language please thank you hello and goodby and when I was served in the checkout the other day by a lady who had a badge explaining she was deaf and lip read I was able to sign thank you and goodbye. Simple things to learn but I could see from her face it had made her day better

if I've had to go to these sort of courses I always centre my questions in the other protected characteristics like disability and ask awkward questions about what is being done for colleagues it makes the point in a different way that trans isn't the be all and end all that trumps everyone else's rights

"It's important to remember that if someone is trans, saying 'she used to be a man' is not accurate. Trans women are women, and they've never not been a woman."

Utter gaslighting bollocks.

“The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.”

Thank you SO much for doing this! I get very frustrated and angry that trans is the ONLY bloody characteristic that seems worthy of being highlighted when organisations talk about 'diversity'. I'm not saying that nobody talks about disability or neurodiversity, but even within that area there are clearly certain aspects of disability that receive a lot more attention. I have a severely autistic child with LDs. His particular 'type' of neurodiversity very rarely gets a mention or consideration when far more articulate advocates for autism are banging on about themselves

And I never, ever hear about discrimination against older people, or menopausal women, in these workplace training packages. Please continue asking awkward questions.

Sounds like the nonsense I had to complete (on line). I failed it a few times (it was utter nonsense and failed to address the equality act properly).

Gender is like the moon…apparently men can use the ladies loos if they feel more comfortable… and this thing called ‘cis’.

99% about men, one ‘non bio’ woman shown briefly.

All examples were about these poor poor gentle souls and all the fawning women stepping in to protect them (as they stand looking at the floor) when someone calls them by their birth name, or even suggests they aren’t all woman…

I complained to HR (who agreed and said ‘well it’s free…’), held my nose and answered ‘correctly’ and put in a command to the organisation who run the courses. I got a nervous ‘oh how can we help you…’ (this was a couple of days ago and I haven’t had time to write a blow by blow reply).

Can you write to HR from the point of view of protecting the organisation?say you are concerned that the course content seems out of date and fails to recognise that GC views are a protected belief under the Equality Act due to the Forstater judgment and this statement you are being asked to agree to appears to ignore that. Pointing out it is like asking a Muslim to sign something to say they agree with Hindu beliefs might help drive the point home.

Yes so the training should say along the lines of "transwomen believe they are women". Keep it factual fgs.

When I was doing the training I thought ‘how bad can it be?’ And it was actually worse.

Gender folk are all gentle little souls who can be mortally wounded by a word, look or thought (sounds almost like the prayer we used to say ‘I have sinned in word, thought and deed…’) and you MUST stick your nose in of anyone dares not treat them like a piece of Lalique. You MUST agree that gender is something that exists and you MUST believe that humans can change sex (well you MUST treat them as if they have).

No mention of the GRC (that’s the ‘legal’ document?) and all about equality act (gender not sex) apart from not was all about gender identity. Definitely a whiff of stonewall law.

I hope I'd have the guts to write something like this ...

"This is an interesting area of debate, based on the interpretation of 'woman'.
While some believe 'woman' is a feeling - and therefore they could agree the person has 'felt like a woman' all their lives, many others believe that a woman is based on sex, and use the definition 'adult human female'. As sex cannot be changed, by this definition a male can never 'become' a woman. The freedom to hold the latter opinion is protected in law (Maya Forstater v CGD Europe)."

And ignore the big about agreement.

On a physical level, regarding people who say their gender identity does not match the sex of their bodies, do you think that nature has made a mistake about the biological sex some people are born, to the point that their bodies need hormones and surgery to make them appear approximately ‘correct’?
(NB I am not talking about the very rare occurrences of DSDs.)

That's a fantastic response. Hope I have the guts to do the same.

Good grief- who supplies this course material???
It would be interesting to see if they cover other protected characteristics: racism, sexism, disabilities really are the Cinderellas of the Equality Act

All I would go so far as to do is to state that I am willing to address people by the names they prefer. This is in line with my organizational policy. Beyond that, I'd simply be asking H.R. in what other circumstances employees would be expected to sign confirmation of their privately held political, philosophical or ideological beliefs.If they can't answer this, or provide evidence of where this is happening, then this is reasonable grounds for refusal to sign on this one privileged basis.

In no circumstances would I sign this document as it stands, nor display 'my' prounouns on any badge or signature or announce them in meetings, or accept the offensive descriptor of cis. I do not identify with a bunch of regressive gendered stereotypes.

So far, attendance at 'training' such as this in my organization has been done on a voluntary basis despite the fact that my employer is up to its nuts in flags, rainbows and Stonewall. What they are, is very well-versed in the law and tend to skate just inside it. But I will not be attending any such training on any pretext.

This is a hill to die on for me. And I expect my employer will be about the last to emerge into the sunlight, blinking and dazzled from the FOG, when the full ramifications of the Cass report begin to become apparent (as if they are not already).

No, thank you.