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.

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.

Going back to this. If the on-line training only allows the 'correct' answer that you must allow someone to self - identify (if e.g. the question is about which toilet a trans woman should use) say that the form is defective. Tell them that the form doesn't allow you to continue without an answer but that there is no option which is in line with the Supreme Court ruling, and hence you cannot finish the training. See what they say to that one.

Yes.

I've also heard of crop circles and the Illuminate.

Do the illuminate shine a light on the crop circles? 😂😂

Only when they're using them as landing lights for the chem trail planes.

God bless autocorrect. 😂

80s fashion wasn't sexual in a fetishistic sort of way, but I don't think it really represents a totally non-sexualized fashion.

A lot of the appeal of it was specifically that it was rebellious and counter-cultural, which it wouldn't have been if it were normalized. And there was a kind of sexual frisson associated with that too, because of the boundary pushing.

There are all kinds of male dress that aren't pants that are common in some settings. Kilts, sarongs, robes of various kinds. Some we see in the west and they are very obviously male clothing.

I think it's really notable that for the most part, you don't see the "men in dresses" guys going for these. If anything it can be rather manly men who adopt things like the utilakilt. No one thinks the older African gentleman wandering down the street, or a priest in a cassock, looks feminine. (In fact, when women wear those garments for men they usually look rather dumpy.)

Dresses I would argue are women's clothes cut for women's bodies. Men interested in fashion aren't likely to wear them because for 95% they will be ill-fitting and look awful. Men who do wear them without sexual reasons are often in the music business or otherwise trying to be subversive or attention seeking, which depends on them not being male clothing.

You could, very easily, design dresses for men, but they would not look like women's dresses. And so my question is, if there are really men who just really love the idea of dresses, where are the men's dresses? If they will buy them, people will sell them, and it's not happening.

I realise conversation has moved on a bit but am just catching up with thread - @sadmillenial I'd be very interested to know of other courses more suitable incase I find my brave pants and speak out. It would be good to offer an alternative they could look at.

I'm with your other points in that I think it's important there is training. This is part of a wider EDI training programme, but I've not fully explored all of it yet, I will. I'm glad I have an employer who is bothering at all tbh, they are generally pretty good. Very glad it's online though as I don't have a great poker face 😅

Yes, I like this solution, thank you.

I am equally intrigued to complete it as I am eye rolling at it. Also wondering about who accredits these courses - perhaps it is the accreditation process that needs a bit more scrutiny too?

This is really helpful, thank you!

Yep, completely agree.

Thanks so much everyone - really useful perspectives.

I can't believe I've reached middle age without this occurring to me as the reason for skirts - duh! Of course it is 🤦‍♀️

I have to say I do agree with this. Mocking can be seen as bullying in the workplace.

Check if your employer has a whistleblowing policy. There may be a route to raise anonymous concerns. I would be very factual.

1. Gender identity is not one of the 9 protected characteristics only gender reassignment.
2. The belief that sex is immutable and gender identity does not exist is a protected belief (Forstater case).
3. For Equality Act purposes sex means biological sex and man and woman mean biological man and woman (For Women Scotland case)
4. Non-Binary has no legal meaning in the U.K. so should not be cited in training on the Equality Act (Castellucci case in Court of Appeal).
5. Assuming everyone has a gender identity discriminates against people who hold the protected belief that sex is immutable and gender identity does not exist.
6. Is similar training going to produced for all other protected characteristics?

If the training is not inline with the above then it is problematic.

it is very specific - gender identity is not protected (you're right) but gender reassignment is protected, which is what i said. That's why i think it would be unfair not to train staff, right? in case they are also unaware?

lots of people on this thread have asked me about my training, so i just thought it was good to clarify.
I work for a mid-size educational organisation and i have had professional development/training in racism, sexism, ableism, neurodiversity and gender over the past 3 years.
The gender awareness training covered gender critical views specifically as they were protected under the equality act but also covered gender reassignment and protection under the law and anti harassment laws. I feel this was useful for all staff and in no way forced anyone to have specific views but made everyone aware of the expectations of public discourse and gave information to colleagues who had no lived experience or prior knowledge of this community

if you have issues with the training in your workplace you should absolutely put a written grievance in. I'm just saying that some companies can do this really well, and i'm grateful i work for one of them.

I was referring to the terminology used in the OP. I think we basically agree.

I think people were also interested in the name of your training provider so they could potentially recommend to their employer @sadmillenial. Appreciate it was three years ago so just post MF/WORIADS but if you were able to recall/check that would be great!

Sorry @sadmillenial just realised I misread your post and the suite of training was over the last three years not necessarily three years ago!

It doesn't 'talk the right talk' in any way, shape or form. Gender Identity in the sense they're using it is indistinguishable from a religious belief.
Is this mandatory 'training'? It's an in-house Thought Reform Camp. It's harmful garbage.

Sorry - replied to the wrong post, and meant to reply to this post -

I was referring to the terminology used in the OP. I think we basically agree.

Aargh! Sorry it was this post I was trying to reply to! 😳:

"I was referring to the terminology used in the OP. I think we basically agree."

Absolutely- I feel I would have a louder voice/be on less sticky ground if I were able to suggest and source a good alternative.

Do please anyone pm me with any good suggestions 🙏

I hear you - I did mean it somewhat flippantly in that they do at least mention sex!

It would be far better to do no training than incorrect training.

This is what concerns me.

i will try and find it out, i think it was from our local council? Anyway, leave it with me and i'll try and find a name for you!