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.

I have no problem with all the local teenagers having a party at sadmillenial’s house. I am sure my friends don’t either. So it must be ok.

How did it go?

I'd refuse on the grounds of it being ideological indoctrination, much like I'd refuse any sort of religious or political 'training'.

You are absolutely right, it makes me so angry that disabled people just get overlooked and pushed to the bottom of the pile. Just imagine if you kicked up a fuss every time that happened and demanded some sort of apology, and did a video of yourself crying in your car and put it on SM. It’s absolutely insane.

My best friend, who is very TWAW and "be kind", works in a place which prides itself on being kind and inclusive. During pride month it's rainbow overload and gender identity training coming out of their ears, as you can imagine.

But when her deaf colleague asked for some training for the team because she was constantly being excluded in meetings, the request was refused for budget reasons.

And her boss, who knows she has been struggling with IVF for ages, has been generally insensitive and unhelpful.

They're not kind. They just identify as kind.

i havent been on mumsnet for a while, so apologies to those asking me genuine questions and wanted to engage

I did say that this issue pushes people to an "all or nothing" combative approach that i dont think is productive, so the person who immediately said "so you believe women are defined by sex stereotypes??" was kinda depressing because that's not at all what i said, what i believe or even what i alluded to in any way....

I also dont accept that "cis" is offensive. Its a term used in many other ways to just say "same", and if we use trans then surely we can use cis as its just the opposite? we can describe molecules as cis and trans, its just an adjective. It doesn't infer value (to me, or to most people i talk with)

also, the weird comment about a party at my house? no idea where that came from, lol.

I'll leave you to it, i only came back to comment earlier with the training provider which you now have

That sounds like a disability discrimination tribunal waiting to happen.

I consider the use of cis extremely offensive and transphobic. Please don’t use it. By calling women cis you are just reiterating to TW that they can never be women. If they were women they’d be cis not trans. It’s kind of trying to shoehorn them into the category “women” but-then pointing out they are not women.
It kind of is an all or nothing issue. Either males with a trans identity are allowed in all female spaces or they are not.

@sadmillenial

I think you got a lot of food for thought in those responses, hopefully you won't get indigestion!

The problem with assuming cis is it doesn't, as far as I can follow this, even satisfy the first tenet of genderism. "I define my own gender"

So yes I fully understand that some people identify as cis gender. Many people have no gender identity at all, because they haven't given it much thought or perhaps they did and decided that gender isn't something they want to participate in. I further understand that gender is an evolving social phenomenon and the number of genders has increased over the years as some people find it fascinating and illuminates some aspect of their personality that they want to share with the world.

You might be cis gender, fair play to you if so. (I don't think you said, and it would be rude of me to assume assign or allocate your gender).

Nobody has asked my gender, it's not relevant to this discussion, so I didn't bring it up. But I can tell you, I am not cis gender - that is for sure.

"Cis" is exceptionally binary thinking that has no place in a modern understanding of sex and gender. It's ridiculous to think that there can be only two possible options of "trans" or "cis" and totally unhelpful to try to enforce such binary thinking by trying to draw some kind of line between ti two options and lump everyone into "cis" who can't be embraced under the "trans" unbrella. I wouldn't say it's offensive in the same way as calling someone an obscene derogatory term is offensive, because of course anyone who wants to self-describe as cis is welcome to, but it's bloddy offensive to assume that anyone is cis who hasn't specifically advertised themselves as such, and it's very rude of you @sadmillenial to just refuse to accept that this is offensive when numerous people have said they are offended by it. It's offensive in the way that referring to people who don't share your religion as heathens/heretics/apostates is offensive - disrespecting their right to be described in their own terms, not yours, and disrespects the enormous spectrum of diversity that there is among people who aren't in your "in" crowd.

I'm definitely not cis but very few people know that because the majority of people don't ask, and quite rightly too because in most contexts they don't need to know. I struggle to comprehend the level or narcissism I'd need to acquire before I felt it necessary to communicate the information more widely to the people I interact with.

I also dont accept that "cis" is offensive. Its a term used in many other ways to just say "same",

Same what?

Same how?

In this context it is not only offensive, it makes no sense except to gender identity believers.

@sadmillenial so you are stating TWANW? As if they were women, they would not need the trans would they? If trans means opposite, then they are saying that TW are the opposite of women. So men then. Gotcha.

It’s a modifier which is predicated on your ideological belief. If it was just an adjective, a “cis woman” is a woman, so a “trans woman” would be an adult biological female human being who identifies as a man. So no, it’s not neutral. Don’t co-opt me into your absurd belief in gendered souls that I don’t share.

Brilliant post by @RedToothBrush.

I have thought at length about validation, and similarities/differences with religion and addiction myself. This articulates it so well. Thank you.

@sadmillenial wrote: I also dont accept that "cis" is offensive. Its a term used in many other ways to just say "same", and if we use trans then surely we can use cis as its just the opposite?

'Cis' is not offensive to you. To a great many others it is, and those parameters of acceptance are for them to define. To continue using a term when you've been requested not to, because it's at best contested or controversial, is obviously offensive: particularly when on the other side of the coin people's livelihoods are being threatened when they refuse to pander to the belief that a man can become a woman.

You are not at liberty to define me as you see fit. I vehemently reject the label of 'cis'. I reject it because I do not accept the arbitrary gender stereotypes imposed on me from birth - note, a very separate thing from either sex 'assigned' at birth or being in actual possession of a gender; a concept embodied within social structure but which exists entirely separately from me as an individual.

Any statement that my 'gender' is or isn't the 'same' as my sex as determined from conception and recorded at birth is therefore meaningless to me. It's a nonsense statement. Gender is a social instrument of oppression, used precisely to keep women in the boxes in which an inherently patriarchal structure believes we should be placed. And I have no truck with this. Why in the hell should I 'identify' with that instrument of my own oppression?

The very fact that you are assuming otherwise on women's behalf is offensive in itself. But offending women, as ever, is a-okay; as is telling them how to respond when they claim they are offended and stating you 'don't accept' it.

What gives you the right to speak for me?

People on this board have told you they find ‘cis’ offensive and yet you pay no heed. You continue to use the word.

Why should anyone listen to you if you do not listen in return?
‘

I also dont accept that "cis" is offensive. Its a term used in many other ways to just say "same", and if we use trans then surely we can use cis as its just the opposite? we can describe molecules as cis and trans, its just an adjective. It doesn't infer value (to me, or to most people i talk with)

We can already use a word in the context of saying opposite when we talk about sex. The opposite of a biological female is a male. In humans the adult female is known as a woman and the adult male is known as a man.

Cis is offensive because it tries to replace sex with gender and gender can not be defined without reference to both sex and regressive gender stereotypes.

Gender is made up shit to control women and restrict ideas of how we all should dress and behave. It's sexism.

Sexism is offensive. Cis is offensive because it's a sexist term.

The law recognises our right to not discriminated against on the basis of our sex. Gender identity is a belief not everyone shares. Sex is a material reality everyone has regardless of what they believe.

Man and woman are perfectly good words.

Corruption and manipulation of language is authoritarian manipulation.

I'm another deeply offended by 'cis'. To be 'cis' one has to have a gender ID which I don't.

'Cis' also makes women a subset of their own sex class.

"I also dont accept that "cis" is offensive. Its a term used in many other ways to just say "same""

'Cis' is not intrinsically offensive. "Cis–trans isomerism" is not offensive.

'Cis' is offensive when used to mean "somebody who identifies with gendered expectations of their sex".

If you don't understand why that is offensive, let us introduce you to feminism.

Just popping back to say I completed the training the other week. Like the pp upthread who took the same course, I ended up just ticking the boxes they wanted me to tick, just to get it off my to do list. 😩

I hate that I've succumbed like this, and that I've been put in this position. It did have a chat box to ask questions, so I used that to ask some poignant questions and the chatbot didn't understand what I was asking, so that was that. No other way I could see to comment or give feedback, which I think is really bad.

It's really disheartening to think this is "accepted" as standard training on the subject (and that my employers are championing this - gutted in fact). My biggest takeaway is that you have to agree that everyone has a gender identity and it's absolutely fine for male born people to use the toilet of their choosing - it actively promoted that, so I will be very much on edge in the loos at work now (csa victim with related ptsd). Oh and there was a "love is love" banner in a video clip of pride, which always gives me the absolute creeps.

I took some footage and will make it my mission to send to Sex Matters. I'm still none the wiser on what the accreditation process actually means or warrants with courses like these, but I'm certain this stuff needs tackling at accreditation level. Someone, somewhere signs these off as passing a certain standard and they need challenging!

And will there be a test at the end that will form the basis of your next appraisal?

Also ask - for a friend - when the training for the Appreciation of the Flat Earth Society and Support for Survivors of Alien Abduction will be timetabled because you happen to know that there are members of staff who are finding it hard to bring their true selves to work for fear of discrimination and ridicule.

My biggest takeaway is that you have to agree that everyone has a gender identity and it's absolutely fine for male born people to use the toilet of their choosing - it actively promoted that, so I will be very much on edge in the loos at work now (csa victim with related ptsd).

Post Supreme Court judgment you can complain about this and tell your HR department that the training is not compliant with the law and so you don't understand why this version of it hasn't been withdrawn from circulation. External providers shouldn't be charging clients for training which is now known to be legally incorrect.

I imagine employers up and down the country are protected to an extent by choosing accredited courses. It's the accreditors who need holding to account on this.

https://www.cpduk.co.uk/what-is-cpd-accreditation

What is CPD accreditation?
CPD accreditation helps to raising industry standards and benchmarks in line with increasing globalisation and consumer demands. Organisations from across industry sectors use CPD accreditation to add value to their training.

The CPD Certification Service has over 27years’ experience helping organisations to formalise their training courses, workshops, conferences and events so they are suitable for CPD accreditation.

CPD accreditation provides the independent and professional third-party evaluation of your training courses, events and other forms of structured learning to ensure they conform to the increasingly recognised Continuing Professional Development industry standards.

Applying CPD accreditation to learning activities helps to create a competitive advantage from others in the market, whilst also providing a sign of quality, credibility and reassurance to learners and delegates. CPD accreditation can apply to a number of core learning activities, which includes training courses, workshops, seminars, eLearning, conferences, and educational events.

@Aaaandanothername If the accredited provider they have chosen has delivered training which isn't compliant with the law then they need to complain and get a refund, or get the training provider to come back and deliver an update - at their own cost - which is actually compliant with the law.

if it is part of wider DEI training, as you mentioned earlier in the thread, OP, you could ask a different question about training.

And that is, given the push to get more people off disability "welfare" and into work, might it be a good idea to get an equivalent and prominent trainer in the world of disability inclusion to give you some training as you feel it is vital for everyone from the CEO down to be prepared and ready for this.

(not that i want to throw anyone with disabilities under the bus, i actually do wish that DEI training included disability training and so on.)