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.

That would be ace if you could share any leads @sadmillenial, much appreciated 😊

sorry - i don't check in here that often and someone else on another thread went a bit over the top about this! (I dont think going offline counts as "running away" lol! i do have a real world life too...)
the training was by the boarding school association (i don't work in a boarding school but must have been on an old mailing list)
It was very thorough and encompassed the whole spectrum of views, including GC and trans inclusive. i thought it was the most balanced training ive had (and i am Trans Inclusive, but i respect GC views and understand they impact my practice)

That's really great to hear, thanks @sadmillenial! Much appreciated

What does being trans inclusive but respecting gender critical views look like in practice?

What's your view on female only rape crisis support, for example?

I promise I'm not being goady, it's just that so many of us have tried and failed to find a middle ground because fundamentally, either you believe a trans woman is a woman or you don't.

Isn’t it possible to be trans inclusive and gender critical?

e.g. a running event that categorises results by sex can still ensure that trans people are welcomed and included.

Or is ‘trans inclusive’ code for ‘does not recognise sex?’

The problem is trans ideology is by nature sexist. It promotes gender stereotypes.

So women are being asked to tolerate sexism to 'be kind' and inclusive.

It's a paradox I'm not sure can be fixed tbh.

Isn’t it possible to be trans inclusive and gender critical?

Gender critical means being critical of the concept of gender - that men and women should have separate behaviours/presentations based on their sex. For example that women should prefer pink, long hair, wear makeup, do the majority of domestic chores, not like football, not take leadership roles, are submissive (including sexually), don’t do ‘masculine jobs’ like engineering, or ‘masculine’ subjects like physics at school, do not speak up, etc. Trans ideology says these regressive sexist stereotypes are not only more important than sex, they say it is what defines men and women. Therefore it is impossible to be critical of the harms and oppression caused by the concept of gender and accepting of trans ideology.

Transideology does not count something as trans inclusive unless it bases categorisations on these sex stereotypes.

I suspect the latter. But we'd need someone who considers themselves "trans inclusive" to confirm.

My belief is that trans people are already included because where things are segregated by sex both sexes are provided for and trans people are either one sex or the other. Trans women can compete in men's sports, therefore they are included.

But I suspect this is not what other people mean by "trans inclusive".

Agree. People often miss this. It's AGP. And it mocks women as well as showing hatred (too strong? strong dislike?) of women who do not fit the 'feminised' stereotype TiMs perform.

I don't disagree, but people have the right to dress how they like. I dislike the way a lot of women dress as well, but I don't think I should have the right to police what anyone wears, provided they're not committing indecent exposure.

I agree with this, but would compare it to somebody holding a religious belief with which I disagree.

In that situation the default is sex though. Then beliefs fit around that.

Gender ideology insists on doing the opposite.

To an extent we have the right to dress as we like, but clothing is also socially coded and so there are conventions and expectations about how we should dress, or what is appropriate, or acceptable, in certain types of situation or circumstance. ( funerals, in churches or other religious buildings, office jobs, teachers and other professionals, nightclubs and so on). Of course people can flout the 'rules' but they risk social displeasure or disapproval if they do, or they may even be refused entrance or access.

A man who is dressing in exaggerated 'sexy' or supposedly feminine attire is flaunting his fetish and that can make people feel uncomfortable. You wouldn't invite a man in to speak to primary school children wearing fishnet tights, stilettos and a face full of make-up ( although, of course, some people do actively like to take their children to DQST events in which men perform in a sexually explicit or provocative manner)

As always with these issues, people get confused between disapproval and things being made illegal.

"People have the right to wear what they like". We never said they don't.

Saying that we disapprove of/feel disgust for men wearing stereotypical women's clothing as a sexual fetish, is not saying we think those men should be arrested or that the practice should be legally banned. It's simply saying that we, personally, disapprove and are disgusted. And explaining why.

It's not us that use and abuse the police and the law to coerce people to accepting their behaviour.

There are so many behaviours that I disapprove of that I don't think should be legally banned. I disapprove of fathers not spending time with their children, I disapprove of extra marital affairs, I disapprove of sulking. I don't think the Law should get involved with any of that.

Similarly I think men wearing "sexy" women's clothing is totally gross. But I'm not calling for it to be banned. I'm just calling it out as gross and I think that the vast majority of people probably privately agree.

I agree. But performing a fetish in public crosses a line, I think.

Maybe so, but it's very difficult to know where to draw the line, legally speaking, between "eccentric clothing" and "fetish".

Where's the line between a trans woman wearing a skirt and a Scottish man wearing a kilt?

And if the difference between a trans woman wearing a push up bra and a flat chested woman wearing a push up bra is that one is male and the other is female, aren't we heading back towards a place where it is illegal for women to wear trousers?

None of the countries which have laws about how people must dress based on their sex are good places for women to live.

I agree, but a Scotsman (or any man) wearing a kilt is wearing male attire (which women may also on occasion wear). A man in a frock is cross-dressing - if that was not his intention he could wear a kilt, a kaftan, any number of clothing items for men that do not include trousers. Why doesn't he? Because it's a fetish. That's the line.
As to push-up bras, that's a bit of whataboutery, I believe.

Men have, until the 19th century, worn make-up of various sorts. There they were with their powder and patch, eye-liner, facepaint, dueling, wielding their swords in battle, jumping off chariots etc. No-one thought make-up was only for women until the nineteenth century and then only in parts of Europe. Thank Beau Brummell for that one.

Exactly. Let’s see the training to respond to genuinely special needs, eg pregnancy or the many various kinds of disability etc.

The difference is that their religious belief doesn’t (or shouldn’t) affect you or anyone else.

Gender identity makes big demands of other people, most damagingly in giving up women’s rights to single-sex services.

Thanks for this useful list!

This hasn’t always been the case. It’s only a few generations since we stopped burning people for heretical views, and religious sectarianism still exists in the UK.

If religious tolerance can exist the same philosophy can apply to other beliefs. Some people believe they have a soul, others an innate gender. Neither belief needs to be endorsed by others.

I do hope you're not referring to me in your post about a poster going 'a bit over the top' Across two threads you did the following 'mentioned training that was TI and covered GC views in respectful, balanced way' and that you thought the training provider may have been the LA. You also gave praise to your home town LA - Brighton. I merely pointed out that I would be very surprised if the aforementioned training did indeed come from Brighton. But thank you for comfirming the training provider.

@TempestTost , I liked your post above about mens dresses. Its a good question- where are the dresses for men? Obviously it's not unusual to see men in kilts, or bizarre or kurta pyjama depending on where you live, and let's not forget david Beckham's sarongs, which actually looked really good.

I also wanted to mention Terence Stamps character in Priscilla Queen of the Desert. He is a "real" transsexual, and doesn't wear pornified fetishwear. He tends to wear pretty much what I wear to work, in fact 😀🙄😊

I don’t believe David Bowie or Kurt Cobain wore dresses as a fetish. I don’t believe Billy Porter does.
My DP wears a utility kilt in summer. He doesn’t have a fetish; he wears it because it’s cool in hot weather.