Gender identity training at work

[Aaaandanothername]

We're having training at work from these people https://www.ihasco.co.uk/courses/detail/gender-identity-expression-training#contents and wondering what people think? It seems to talk the right talk about biological sex, but doesn't seem to acknowledge (in the blurb at least) that some people don't have a gender identity or see it as a belief.

Do you accept that those men in dresses should have access to single sex spaces?

This ⬆️

Perhaps take the test and take pictures/screenshot it.

If the training seems as though it isn’t lawful and you aren’t in a position to complain at work, would Sex Matters/another organisation be interested in at least collecting evidence of what is included in training courses?

Ask whether the forthcoming training has been re-acredited as compliant with the recent Supreme Court ruling and the upcoming EHRC guidance, and if not perhaps it had better be postponed until that re-acreditation can occur?
You moght also express disquiet that there are 9 protected characteristics under the equalities act which are all of equal importance and having a training programme that focuses on the protected category of gender reassignment without giving equal training time to the other protected characteristics opens the company to a risk of perceived bias which could be detrimental.

Women wearing trousers and having tattoos isn't sexual though.

I get a lot of stuff in my Facebook news feed about the Supreme Court judgment at the moment. Yesterday I read a comment by a TW who said that he had been using women's toilets for years and no one had ever had a problem with it. I clicked on the profile and they were the biggest "Malaga Airport" I have ever seen. Hard to judge height from a photo but I would guess well over 6ft, built like a brick shithouse, very obviously male bone structure, bad wig. Dozens of selfies wearing skin tight crotch length dresses with a bulge showing he still has male genitalia, low cut tops with fake breasts falling out. I commented saying that his sex was very obvious in Facebook pictures and would be even more obvious in real life, and that just because no woman had ever been brave enough to actually challenge his presence in their spaces doesn't mean nobody notices or minds. I also explained that when women feel threatened by a man it is normal not to say anything, to avoid provoking a violent reaction. He responded with a laughing emoji.

I don't like men like that wearing dresses because it is clearly a fetish that they are forcing the rest of us to participate in.

They wouldn’t make you do a course about Christian beliefs I assume? This is just as inappropriate and I’d tell them so.

You make a valid point, but this is why it will take decades to get this harmful ideology out of our workplaces and schools.

If that's true then they also have a duty of care to highlight how gender reassignment (not gender identity) can be sexist and homophobic and gender critical views must be respected.

Gender training as it stands, is frankly, unacceptable without that.

This.

@Aaaandanothername There have been some good suggestions on this thread about how to push back on this in your workplace (if you want to push back on it).

One thing you could do is ask whether the training has been updated to reflect the Supreme Court judgment. If it hasn't, isn't there a risk that it will be presenting an interpretation of the law which has since been proven to be incorrect? This is all the more concerning if it is online training which each individual does on their own, rather than face to face training in a group, where you would have the opportunity to ask questions and challenge the trainer if they said something you think is incorrect.

On the other hand, you could do the training and take screen shots of each page, and then go to HR expressing your concerns about it in the wake of the Supreme Court judgment.

Particularly if it says anything incorrect about single sex spaces because then you can point out to HR that the training is simply wrong, and ask them if they are going to try and get their money back so they can put on some different training which is actually correct.

I have no problem with men wearing dresses - it’s just clothing. It doesn’t make them women, any more than women wearing trousers makes them men.

We use iHasco and the training is generally fairly uncontroversial. The courses tend to highlight where you should go if you're unsure and what kind of situations could arise that are an HR disaster waiting to happen. That in itself isn't necessarily a bad idea to roll out, depending on the nuances within it.

I don't think this is as absolute as you're suggesting. Agree both of these are true but there are plenty of men who wear dresses and skirts for other reasons (because they're comfortable, religion and culture, gender non-conformity, fashion)

Yes, I hear you, and I did once think that way myself. But it's all gone too far now, it's not experimenting with fashion or gender anymore, men are dressing-up entirely as "their wives" or "school girls" or "your stereotypical WI member" - it's gone from being cool to being creepy.

I think the problem is that it isn't symmetrical.

On one hand, women wear pretty much whatever they want.

On the other, femininity is considered demeaning for men so wearing 'feminine' clothes is taboo, and therefore, for some men it is fetishised. I think that if men were more gender-non conforming, this would be neutralised.

However, that doesn't solve the problem that for some men, the clothes are just an avatar, and it's the idea of being a submissive doll woman that is fetishised, and even in a world where there was no taboo around wearing a skirt, mimicking women would still be part of their fetish.

I agree with you. I don't find sweeping generalisations about 'men in dresses' constructive on the whole as I think it entrenches the notion that there's something transgressive about men and perceived femininity. Surely the aim of gender criticism is for men wearing dresses to be considered in the same light as women in trousers? (Which historically in western context was synonymous with deviance).

Sorry for potentially derailing. On the training OP, I understand your instinctive reaction and I hope it is uncontroversial as another pp has suggested.

I think the difference is, when women wear trousers, we just wear trousers, we don’t over emphasise that we’re wearing ‘men’s clothes’ and put on fake facial hair and try to imitate men. Men however, ape what they perceive as ‘femininity’ by completely over exaggerating their make up and hair, it just isn’t comparable in my view.

Also, women wear trousers for convenience and practicality, with the best will in the world dresses aren’t the most convenient or practical item of clothing.

Which religion or culture are you thinking of where men wear dresses...?!

If you are thinking of Muslim men wearing a long robe (I think they call it wearing izar), I think they'd raise an eyebrow to hear you calling that a "dress". Those clothes are specifically chosen to be modest. Totally worlds apart from a transwoman in a dress. I'm astonished that you can lump them together, really.

Robes, dresses. It's pretty much the same thing. A garment that does not enclose each leg separately.

Obviously some clothes are designed to fit the female form, but that includes shirts and jumpers and trousers.

They are if you don't have access to a private toilet.

They aren't the same thing. A man wearing a woman's dress does this to cause a shock/disgust reaction in others and/or titillation in the wearer. Edit - or even in the unlikely hope of concealing their own sex.

A Muslim man wears the izar robe specifically to be modest. They're worn with trousers underneath usually. They're intended to deflect attention rather than draw it.

It's bonkers to pretend they're any way similar or equivalent and I'm just done with pretending up is down or forwards is backwards, to appease creepy men.

Saying a transwoman wearing a dress is like a Muslim man wearing izar, it's the kind of logic of saying young boys go into the ladies' changing room with their mums, so why can't men.

It's looking at the literal shape of the garment and totally ignoring intent, outcome, context, significance.

This ^

?

Good Morning staff,

Here are the nine Protected Characteristics under the Equality Act. We want you to be aware of all of them, and ensure that you do not discriminate on the basis of those characteristics.

Take a moment to read what they are.

Thank you for your attention.

HR Training Team. 2025.