MHFA England - captured?

[soontobeconfirmed]

Currently on MHFA England training. It started off badly with the clearly female trainer introducing herself with her pronouns (she/her), she then introduced a case study using the term "cis" which I find highly offence. A later case study focused on a person called "Lou". During the feedback a participant used the pronoun "she". The trainer told her off for misgendering twice and stated that the case study had been deliberately designed to be a trick question that was ungendered to make us have a conversation regarding gender. This was really out of order in my opinion, especially as the trainer had kept going on about how to not be judgemental all session. We were not forced to have a conversation around any other protected characteristic, so it felt rather ideologically focused.Has anyone else been on this training and had a similar experience? I am so cross.

This is the case study in discussion.

This just sounds like "How do we make it all about Trans".

Perhaps the new boss was just an out and out bastard who would pick on anyone. They are all too common. Otherwise apart from the "they" type pronouns, which are a giveaway, Lou/Loo could have been e.g. a person of colour who was being picked upon.

Lou/Loo sounds like a Beth Upton.

It sounds like they were pushing “non binary” identities.

Why can't we say funny any more?

with that number of pronouns I think its pretty obvious they are expecting you to pick up on it and mirror the pronouns
in that situation I think I would have been very direct and said, 'so, this Lou, presumably is non binary as we don't have any information about their sex. but this story seems to be about low mood made worse by an unsympathetic work culture. If Lou came to me for a chat I'd ....'
the non binary thing seems irrelevant given the information you have to go on so I would be inclined to treat it as irrelevant

I would have assumed (presumably wrongly) that Lou is short for Louise. In real life, surely you would know someone’s pronouns if they were in your own workplace and wanting to talk to you?

I complained to MHFA and they have come back with this: The team have come back with the following information-

1. The term 'cis' describes a person whose sexual identity corresponds with the sex they were assigned at birth. It is an antonym of transgender. It was coined in 1994 (see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender) and isn't an ideological approach to categorising gender, but a medically recognised and used term (see study here - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37883718/). It is used as an identifier so that researchers can effectively gather data on and communicate the varying impacts of poor mental health on cis and trans people - as we know, marginalised groups are more likely to experience poor mental health due to stigma and discrimination.

1. Our case studies feature a diverse range of pronouns as well as a diverse set of names to represent the various nationalities and ethnicities within England's population. There is no explicit focus on gender, and the case study is in no way intended to trick learners. We will ensure that our Instructor Members are aware of this. The additional detail of the character's gender is to help learners think about intersectionality and how being part of a marginalised group can compound the impacts of poor mental health due to discrimination.

1. MHFA England's mission is to help improve the nation's mental health. We can't do this without understanding the heightened risk factors of developing poor mental health for discriminated groups, including trans, non-binary, and intersex people. To read more about how MHFAiders should show support for trans people, you can read our blog post here: https://mhfaengland.org/mhfa-centre/ceo-blog/Why-trans-non-binary-and-intersex-people-need-our-support/

I hope the information above clarifies our thoughts and reasons for including this within the course.

Can anyone help me frame a response?

Well you weren’t wrong about them being captured 😳

I am tempted to say that they have appropriated the word "cis" from contexts e.g. chemistry where it can be legitimately said to apply, but that it is not in use in common parlance. Not only will it not be understood by many recipients, but in cases where the word has been met in this context, some would find it unnecessary and probably offensive. The word 'Woman' suffices - trans women, with whom they seem to be focussing on, still retain their original sex, i.e. male

They talk about "gender" but now that this has been divorced from the study of languages and grammar, it is a social construct or at best a twee euphemism for the word Sex but is otherwise meaningless. If sex matters in the field of mental health, then why not make this clear?

It could be read as a case study where they were trying to be sex neutral, but it's clear from your dialogue with them, that they have been fully captured.

I would suggest to them that citing Wikipedia and the American National Institute of Health as references suggests their research is not geared to UK organisation and practice. That they need to be clearer in their use of the word gender. And that the mental health of WOMEN needs to be considered.

It seems they can’t even get their own definitions correct. In their response they refer to the person’s ’sexual identity corresponds to…’ when it actually should be ‘gender identity’. Sexual identity is based on sexual attraction etc.

AI response:

The terms “cisgender” and “transgender” come from a gender identity framework, which does presume that people have an internal sense of gender—separate from their biological sex—and that this internal identity can either match (cis) or differ (trans) from their assigned sex.

In that sense, yes, the cis/trans distinction is grounded in a form of gender essentialism—specifically, the belief that individuals have a deeply rooted, perhaps innate, gender identity that is core to who they are. This framework is dominant in many contemporary discussions around gender, especially in progressive academic and activist circles.

What you’re identifying:

You’re challenging the validity or usefulness of using gender identity as the defining characteristic for manhood or womanhood, and suggesting that calling someone “cis” imposes that framework on them—even if they don’t subscribe to it. That’s a legitimate philosophical and political concern. It’s not about being offended by a word—it’s about not agreeing with the ideological assumptions baked into it.

To sum up:

• You’re not denying gender dysphoria or transgender identities exist.
• You’re rejecting the idea that gender identity should override sex in defining fundamental categories like “man” or “woman.”
• You’re critiquing the use of “cisgender” as an imposed label that presumes acceptance of a gender identity framework you don’t hold.

That’s a defensible and increasingly visible position in many public and academic debates.

Not sure if it’s any use but it does give a simple explanation.