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.

its a very good (and complicated) question

Its such a shame that so much public discourse pushes people to be "all or nothing", because real life is so much more nuanced

I have many trans friends, so i have never had any issue with the existing legislation but i totally understand the tension that exists between sex and gender when it comes to protected spaces such as crisis centre and refuges, etc

I dont have any problem with shared public spaces in bars/theatres/gyms etc, or with women only events being open to trans woman. I do understand the need for some protected spaces for cis women only though (and so do most of my trans friends)

I also have a nuanced view of sports - i dont care if trans women run a "fun run" in the women's category, or play amateur sports in a womens league. I also believe that Olympic committees and professional bodies should have clear and evidence based rulings about professional trans players that might exclude some people.

so i suppose im trans inclusive in most areas but also agree some spaces need to be protected for cis women. Its very hard to express that view, because the GC crew will pile on me and some of the trans crew will pile on me.... I cant please everyone because i dont think its possible to "pick a side", its more complex than that

So you believe women are defined by sex stereotypes?

No such thing as “cis”. It is offensive.

I also have a nuanced view of sports
Ah yes, compared to all those unsophisticated people with their simplistic opinions.

Thank you for this answer.

I do struggle to see how your vision works in practice though.

How do we protect women whose comfort level sharing spaces with trans women isn't where yours is?

How do you distinguish between trans women in men in order to allow trans women into (some) women's spaces and keep men out of them?

Surely as soon as you have a space, service or sporting category which isn't explicitly mixed sex, you have to decide where you are drawing your boundaries about who is a woman and who is not, and I just don't get what criteria you are using. If a woman is anyone who says they are a woman, how do we stop men from just saying they are women? And if it's not important to stop men from saying they are women in order to access a women only space, why does that space need to be women only in the first place?

There isn't nuance. These are blokes who impose themselves because women are too passive or scared to complain. And women been conditioned to be nice rather than say, "your decision to present 'as a woman' is a manifestation of sexist ideas about women". Instead they use the word Nuance to try and get other women to comply with situations they don't feel are in women's best interests for all manner of reasons. It's a type of soft coercion.

Being in an all woman environment changes in atmosphere when a man enters. The entitlement shines through in the fact they believe they should be there. Genuinely, why should they be? Why should we accept offensive representations of women? There's the nice young lad who dresses fairly normally but there's also the middle aged fat bloke who dresses like a creep if you allow your 'nice friend'. And even then the second the nice young lad puts on a couple of fake tits, we've crept into the land of public fetish and sexualisation. A lot of women are less confident and less willing to speak openly around men. More so around men displaying sexual behaviour. This isn't about whether some women are fine with it. Others find it an act of dominance and intimidation by displaying power over women.

Why do they have to be in a women's only event? If they are in a fun run for example they are safe - they are in a public space, surrounded by others. The desire to go in a women's race is motivated by the need for validation. That creates all sorts of psychological aspects downstream from that entitlement and insistence on being regarded as a woman in one situation. It blurs boundaries and that's the entire problem for areas where it affects women to an even greater extent. Ultimately what's wrong with the men's event? If you feel your body is out of step with how you feel, you don't fix that by validation in some areas and ultimately you are still going to have to suck it up in others. The fact you get validation in one area sets an expectation and desire to have more elsewhere rather than confronting the problem head on.

To me it's a bit like saying to an addict, well you can have your addiction in this situation cos it's not as bad as it could be in this situation and we'll put up with that even though it means you aren't properly dealing with your addiction, because I'm nice.

It doesn't work like that. An addict chases their fix and doesn't understand how in those scenarios they still will affect others around them who tolerate but are wary because they know the addict could turn nasty very easily if they don't say the right thing because of the nature of their addiction. The eggshell effect.

Instead addicts need to admit they have a problem in all situations and get to the heart of it. Half in, half out approaches don't work. If it's body dsymorphia the same applies - because of the impact on others and because you ultimately are fueling rather than dealing with the dsymorphia by legitimising it.

Validation is not a neutral act. It disempowers women and it allows men to be centred. Its regressive and sexist.

I know others made comments up thread about religion and tolerating religious views we don't like in our society. I disagree because there's a difference between tolerating views we don't have to be party to and views which are imposed on us and demand our participation in supporting 'to be nice'. At the heart of it remains the sexism that being a woman is all about appearance and the feeling in a man's head about the role and position of women.

If a man wants to be non conforming, great. I'm well up for supporting that. But it comes back to 'and what exactly is wrong with participating in the mens race'? Why do you have to have the validation as a woman instead? What's that about, deep down and really and does it mean that women are inadvertently still collateral? The answer is a definite yes to me. We are not hear to uphold men's delusions or sexist views. Doing so solidifies the legitimacy of those views and makes it harder for women to have equal stakes in every day life.

Re: sport, I don't care if a trans women runs in a fun run, and I think all sports participation should be encouraged. I do care if organisations like Park Run provided a different quality of data to male and female participants. This is just basic sex discrimination.

However, I'm most interested to know how you define 'trans'.

This is a Guardian article about a man who identifies as trans being told not to use the women's toilets.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/15/trans-australian-uk-britain-tolerance

It's taken from a longer article on substack

lettersfromjack.substack.com/p/nabbed-by-the-toilet-police?r=62st1&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true

From his point of view, he is wearing a dress and makeup and presenting as feminine - so he feels he should be allowed to use the women's toilets.

He describes himself as 'living liminaly gender wise', but it's not really clear that he is any more gender non conforming than the late princess of Wales.

https://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/slideshow/2839658/princess-diana-menswear-fashion-moments/

Do you think that Jack should be able to use women's facilities? At what point do you draw a line? If you draw a line, how do you think this could be described in legislation?

Before laws restricting smoking in public places came in, it was commonplace for smokers to ask those they were with, ‘do you mind if I smoke’. It wasn’t uncommon for a mix of responses -but it was a shared expectation that any objection was an indication that the smoker should go outside to smoke. Smokers, and non smokers who didn’t mind being around smoke, recognised that their experience and preference did not negate the discomfort or aversion felt by those who disliked smoke.

It was, and still is, a ‘no-brainer’ that personal comfort relating to a phenomenon doesn’t mitigate the discomfort that the same phenomenon has on others.

Where single sex provision is legal, any given female’s comfort or discomfort with including males is irrelevant. Each experience exists independently, unaffected by the preference of others.

@sadmillenialwhat are your thoughts on this?

Also want to point out for younger readers that nothing the Princess of Wales wore was shocking. This was just fashion.

Where a female only provision (from loos to refuge centres) is a proportionate means to achieving a legitimate aim, its legal.

Where female only provision is legal, there isn’t a debate to be had about which males, if any, should be included. The legal status determines that males must not be included.

There is debate to be had about whether different types of provision should be single sex (whether they are legitimate / proportionate). There are problems to solve relating to the needs of those for whom single sex provision presents issues for.

I surmise that the lack of discussion/ debate about whether or not single sex provision should be single sex in the first place, reflects widespread support for female only loos, changing rooms, hospital wards, refuges, and sports.

I surmise that the lack of discussion about alternative provision is that psychic harm is the primary issue for TRAs. The psychic harm arises when excluded, when thinking about being excluded, and when engaging in thought about alternative solutions. All of these scenarios involve acknowledging that they are not female and others don’t classify them as female. THIS is the problem that needs solving

It's depressing you have to point this out but probably necessary within the sex-stereotype conformist culture we swim in.

Excellent post from @RedToothBrush

@sadmillenialI would also be very interested to hear your answers to the questions others have asked, which I'm not adding to, not because I'm being lazy, honest! but because others have already asked all the questions I myself would've asked).

There was the ability to say no. And it was ok to say no. And it was recognised that a failure to ask was rude and inconsiderate. People sometimes did this or were nasty if someone said no, but it was them who were recognised as the problem not the person objecting.

If someone enters a women's event or space, then by default they understand it to be a women's event. They don't have the ability to say no.

It either has to be mixed or actually do a ronseal and do exactly what it says on the tin.

Forcing yourself in is rude, inconsiderate and disrespectful.

It's not the other way around where women saying no is somehow deemed scornful by people who don't like it. Instead women saying no are told they are 'not inclusive', 'aren't getting the arguments and nuance', are ignorant and uneducated, are bigoted etc etc. There still isn't this recognition of the legitimacy of saying no to men.

@RedToothBrushIts not clear to me whether you are challenging what I have written - I’m always keen to challenge my own thinking, so not adverse to challenge!

My aim was to highlight how it is not beyond comprehension for people to recognise and accept that whilst they might be comfortable with something, their experience doesn’t mitigate or mediate others’ discomfort - and to juxtapose this with women saying or thinking that their willingness to include TIMs in female only spaces should have bearing on TIMs being granted access

I'm not challenging! I'm agreeing with and reinforcing what you said!

Thansk for answering, @sadmillenial.

I'm not clear what you mean when you talk about 'shared public spaces in bars/theatres/gyms'. There are no single-sex theatres, as far as I know. Do you mean the loos and changing rooms within these venues or do.you actually mean the public areas? Rather different arguments apply to each scenario.

When it comes.to sport, if it is not fair, or not safe, for a male person to play in the higher/professional level of a women's sport, why is it OK for them to do so at lower/amateur levels? Why do people only deserve fair and safe competition for something they're really good at, not if they're a bit rubbish or still learning? Bear in mind that the lower and amateur leagues include a lot of youth teams that will feed up to the professional levels. Girls who are permanently injured or discouraged at that level will not progress to the higher levels.

Thank you. It’s nice to be affirmed but challenge is also good!

I’m struggling to recognise your view of the eighties. I worked in a very creative industry, and I had connections with theatre, television and non commercial art. I never saw any man wearing a dress ( or make up) except when we had our themed fancy dress Christmas party.

Women will often not like competing with men because it changes the dynamics.

I went to a women's only outdoor adventure weekend a couple of years ago. The point was that men and women interact in a different way and it changed the dynamics and it was recognised by the sporting bodies in charge.

Men are more competitive and macho. Whilst women were more cooperative and mutually encouraging regardless of level. This was putting women off the sport when in an environment with men. It has impacts to coaching too - women are more lacking in confidence and needed more gentle encouragement whereas men tend to over estimate their abilities.

Thus the weekend was about trying to get women more into the sport in an environment that could develop their skills without feeling that they were lacking in some way.

If you stick a transwomen into the mix you automatically change the dynamics for two reasons. Firstly they may have male socialisation patterns. But secondly there's aspects to do with the physicality and strength of women compared to men. Women understand this in a way that a man can't. Some is to do with being physically smaller and some is to do with the difference in strength and muscle power.

The vast majority of coaches were also female which also made a huge difference. Indeed the one thing I did which I didn't get on with was the one with the male coach that didn't recognise how much difficulty I was having with physical strength.

The legitimate aim is precisely to get women who otherwise wouldn't give it a go or feel intimidated to do so in an environment with others who fully understand those differences. It's got nothing to do with uteruses or reducing to uteruses.

If you are in a 'fun event' with males and they are performing at a level you can't hope to match because of the sheer difference in physical strength, then it just puts off women because of how it can be demotivating. If transwomen are using womens amateur sport 'because they aren't allowed to compete at a higher level' (they are - just not in the women's) it's at the expense of women in various other ways - being able to compete at the appropriate level due to number of spaces available and the way it changes the competitive dynamics - even in 'fun events'.

Say a woman takes part in a run and comes third she might go 'ooo maybe I should take this more seriously I'm doing well'. If she comes six or seventh with three transwomen ahead of her, it's not got the same motivational thing and there's an element of how you can't actually see your achievement as clearly. She may or may not be aware of who she's competing with. It could result in a feeling of frustration OR women not getting that feeling of achievement they deserve because they aren't fully aware of how well they've actually done.

It's a small thing, but that's part of the issue with everyday sexism. Those little things mount up and together take a toll in grinding women down. Men don't have to be as resilient because they don't face anywhere near as many little obstacles.

If transwomen want to compete apart from men then fine, but it needs to be on a playing field that doesn't impact women to enable that.

Bowie and Cobain did it to push boundaries and for attention, which was part and parcel of the rock star image.

To some extent I suppose it was being critical of those boundaries, but more than that, it was just about the pushing. The same as rock stars biting the heads off bats or getting their cocks out on stage or having tattoos on their faces.

If we make those things normal than they will just do something else.

As a deaf person, I can't even get hospitals to stop calling my name in a busy waiting room despite there being a sticker on the front of my notes and me notifying reception when I check in. Luckily I have found that when I explain to others sitting by me they have helpfully let me know when it's my name.

If I was trans they would fall over themselves to make things work for me

@sadmillenial

Your approach is too complicated to be workable and also currently illegal.

If sex-segregation is important for a particular purpose then that purpose is undermined by including anyone of the opposite sex.

The only quid pro quo is making that opposite-sex intruder feel good about themselves. Why is that our problem?

You're doing trans people a disservice by suggesting a flexible approach according to different circumstances, because all that does is provoke a lot of arguments involving 'passing', medical treatments, relative sporting abilities, relative crime rates, different physical needs, etc etc. In other words, everyone bangs on morning noon and night about the very things that will remind trans people that they haven't changed sex and never will.

Much better to accept that when sex-segregation is important, opposite sex stays out.

That's appalling.

Just a thought experiment.

If there were genuinely to be training on all the PCs of the EA2010, what would it look like for a) sex and b) belief?

I guess I'd want to say "remember that if women are more likely to do X, if you fail to provide for this you could be discriminating on the grounds of sex".
So women are more likely to be primary carer for both children and the elderly.
And women are likely to need longer in the toilet, likely to be less strong, and likely to need different fitting safety equipment.

I think I'd also want the wording that "not everyone believes the same and we shouldn't assume they do". Things like socialising with alcohol, pronoun policies, catering at events, dress policies.

What else would be helpful?

@sadmillenial
As other posters have pointed out, your pick and mix approach to trans inclusion is likely to be unlawful.
If you provide an event or service to biological women and a subset of biological men (trans women) but exclude all other biological men then you have discriminated against the men who are excluded. You have created a mixed sex event where all of one sex can attend and only a subset of the other sex can attend. That is sex discrimination against the excluded men because you’ve set different criteria for both sexes without any real justification.

You also fail to address the impact on women who cannot or do not wish to share spaces or events with biological males however they identify. There may be women who seek out women only events and spaces due to trauma, religion or culture. If the inclusion of biological males means that these women self exclude then the inclusion of males may be indirect racial or religious discrimination as the impact may be disproportionately high for some religions or cultures. For example, if the inclusion of males in a women’s dance class means some Jewish and Muslim women no longer attend the impact on them of that decision is disproportionate compared to other people.

You said it’s nuanced but I don’t think you have grasped the complexity and consequences of what you suggest.