54

My work is heavily involved with customer service. In spring we were informed of a seminar that was scheduled for last week with the title “Equality” and the presenters are from - you guessed it - a Pride organization. I didn’t have the time to access the seminar last week but I watched the recording now.

The introduction is done by a middle aged woman from my organization. She starts off the whole thing by stating that this is not a matter of opinion, but human rights. So right away she suggests you’re not allowed to have an opinion on this issue.

My workplace is dominated by white women, as it’s a female dominated field. Many women have high positions and all my bosses (I have three) are women. I do live in a very white country with a short immigration history. They point out that this is the case, and then immediately state that being part of the majority means you don’t necessarily understand issues surrounding minorities. This is obviously true, but given this presentation is going to be about gender and gender identity, it leaves a bitter taste to know that as a woman in a male dominated WORLD (even though the workplace isn’t), I’m here pointed out as an oppressor/high status person who “maybe just doesn’t understand”.

The whole presentation is done by a TIM in his sixties, dressed as a typical 60-year old woman. Nothing extravagant or sexual at all. Before he spoke I actually wasn’t sure if he was a TIM, but then it became quite clear. He later explains he identifies as transfeminine.

From this point I knew where we were headed - this was going to be about gender ideology and equality for people who follow gender ideology, not equality in any other sense. I still wanted to pay attention and listened to the whole presentation.

He does start by saying we’re allowed to ask any questions. So that’s good! But since I was watching the recording, I sadly didn’t see if any questions were asked and what subsequent discussions were raised.

He goes into explaining different terms surrounding sexuality and gender. Words are extremely important, however, different words can mean different things for different people and there also might be people who don’t have words that describes themselves (he says he doesn’t really have a word to explain his own gender identity). But everyone still has the right to define or not define their sexuality and gender. Does this mean I can define myself as a woman purely because of my biology, and not as a “cis”woman? I don’t know how he would respond to that.

I’m not going to go much into all the different sexualities he explains except to state “queer” is apparently a sexual orientation.

When it comes to gender however, we learn that gender and sex are mutually exclusive and nothing makes sense. It’s all connected to biology, social codes, inner “feelings” and experience, culture, norms, gender identity, self-expression and judicial meanings.

He calls “XX-people” birthers and “XY-people” inseminators. But of course there are so, so many infinite variations of this! He also says that usually, XX is feminine and XY is masculine. Not female and male, but feminine and masculine. Doesn’t go in to explain what feminine or masculine means. He also talks about female and male brains and how they are “statistically different”, but doesn’t provide any source for this statement. Apparently the differences in our brains happens in utero, after the body has developed. He talks about how hormones released from the mother (doesn’t he mean birther?) can create a gender identity that differs from the body. This phenomenon is apparently more prominent among intersex individuals. So he smashes intersex and trans together.

Consensus: gender identity is not a decision, it’s a deeply ingrained feature that you’re born with.

He does say that trans can mean that a female bodied person is actually a man or a male bodied person is actually a woman. So there IS something called male and female then? But again, no more explanation. It’s all just a jumble of words, jumping from one hoop to another. The is no binary, but suddenly there is.

His quote: “A trans man is a person born in a girl’s body” - isn’t that a bit transphobic? /s

Then we come to the infamous suicide-statistics. He says trans people have a much much higher suicide risk compared to the majority of society. And he has stats! A tiny notice in the bottom of the presentation, referencing a study.

Reader, I read it. Not through and through, but enough to see that it states that “gay and bisexuals had a depression rate double to heterosexuals.” TIM presenter doesn’t mention this at all, only talks about trans people. The paper he references mentions another paper from the US, where it was concluded that trans people are much more likely to have depression than non-trans people. This paper was an examination of 77 studies between 1997 and 2017, and not a study in itself. It’s known that many of these studies rely on self-reports of one’s gender identity and also, that suicidal thoughts and depression isn’t the same as the risk of actual suicide.

Unbelievably he mentions that many trans people are neurodiverse, but doesn’t stop to question why that could be the case.

He opens up about himself so much to say since he came out it has only been lots of endorphins and no trouble at all. Which is quite the contrast to what he just spent one hour talking about. His reasoning for this is that he is white, straight (I guess he means he likes women), has a higher education and other things that in a wheel of power gives him certain privileges. He uses an illustration of a wheel where different characteristics are given more power than others, like if you’re a citizen versus an immigrant versus an illegal immigrant, or if your a man, woman or trans person (where women obviously are more privileged than trans people).

There’s a lot more I could write but I’m stopping here. Hopefully this won’t impact my work that much, for example we already have gender neutral bathrooms (not stalls, but separate rooms with no markings/symbols) and as of yet no mention of putting pronouns in email-signatures etc. Still, I feel a bit sad that this is what it has come to. Almost no mention of LGB, just trans.

My work is heavily involved with customer service. In spring we were informed of a seminar that was scheduled for last week with the title “Equality” and the presenters are from - you guessed it - a Pride organization. I didn’t have the time to access the seminar last week but I watched the recording now. The introduction is done by a middle aged woman from my organization. She starts off the whole thing by stating that this is not a matter of opinion, but human rights. So right away she suggests you’re not allowed to have an opinion on this issue. My workplace is dominated by white women, as it’s a female dominated field. Many women have high positions and all my bosses (I have three) are women. I do live in a very white country with a short immigration history. They point out that this is the case, and then immediately state that being part of the majority means you don’t necessarily understand issues surrounding minorities. This is obviously true, but given this presentation is going to be about gender and gender identity, it leaves a bitter taste to know that as a woman in a male dominated WORLD (even though the workplace isn’t), I’m here pointed out as an oppressor/high status person who “maybe just doesn’t understand”. The whole presentation is done by a TIM in his sixties, dressed as a typical 60-year old woman. Nothing extravagant or sexual at all. Before he spoke I actually wasn’t sure if he was a TIM, but then it became quite clear. He later explains he identifies as transfeminine. From this point I knew where we were headed - this was going to be about gender ideology and equality for people who follow gender ideology, not equality in any other sense. I still wanted to pay attention and listened to the whole presentation. He does start by saying we’re allowed to ask any questions. So that’s good! But since I was watching the recording, I sadly didn’t see if any questions were asked and what subsequent discussions were raised. He goes into explaining different terms surrounding sexuality and gender. Words are extremely important, however, different words can mean different things for different people and there also might be people who don’t have words that describes themselves (he says he doesn’t really have a word to explain his own gender identity). But everyone still has the right to define or not define their sexuality and gender. Does this mean I can define myself as a woman purely because of my biology, and not as a “cis”woman? I don’t know how he would respond to that. I’m not going to go much into all the different sexualities he explains except to state “queer” is apparently a sexual orientation. When it comes to gender however, we learn that gender and sex are mutually exclusive and nothing makes sense. It’s all connected to biology, social codes, inner “feelings” and experience, culture, norms, gender identity, self-expression and judicial meanings. He calls “XX-people” birthers and “XY-people” inseminators. But of course there are so, so many infinite variations of this! He also says that usually, XX is feminine and XY is masculine. Not female and male, but **feminine** and **masculine**. Doesn’t go in to explain what feminine or masculine means. He also talks about female and male brains and how they are “statistically different”, but doesn’t provide any source for this statement. Apparently the differences in our brains happens in utero, after the body has developed. He talks about how hormones released from the mother (doesn’t he mean birther?) can create a gender identity that differs from the body. This phenomenon is apparently more prominent among intersex individuals. So he smashes intersex and trans together. **Consensus**: gender identity is not a decision, it’s a deeply ingrained feature that you’re born with. He does say that trans *can* mean that a **female bodied person** is actually a man or a **male bodied person** is actually a woman. So there IS something called male and female then? But again, no more explanation. It’s all just a jumble of words, jumping from one hoop to another. The is no binary, but suddenly there is. His quote: “A trans man is a person born in a girl’s body” - isn’t that a bit transphobic? /s Then we come to the infamous suicide-statistics. He says trans people have a much much higher suicide risk compared to the majority of society. And he has stats! A tiny notice in the bottom of the presentation, referencing a study. Reader, I read it. Not through and through, but enough to see that it states that “gay and bisexuals had a depression rate double to heterosexuals.” TIM presenter doesn’t mention this at all, only talks about trans people. The paper he references mentions *another* paper from the US, where it was concluded that trans people are much more likely to have depression than non-trans people. This paper was an examination of 77 studies between 1997 and 2017, and not a study in itself. It’s known that many of these studies rely on self-reports of one’s gender identity and also, that suicidal thoughts and depression isn’t the same as the risk of *actual* suicide. Unbelievably he mentions that many trans people are neurodiverse, but doesn’t stop to question why that could be the case. He opens up about himself so much to say since he came out it has only been lots of endorphins and no trouble at all. Which is quite the contrast to what he just spent one hour talking about. His reasoning for this is that he is white, straight (I guess he means he likes women), has a higher education and other things that in a wheel of power gives him certain privileges. He uses an illustration of a wheel where different characteristics are given more power than others, like if you’re a citizen versus an immigrant versus an illegal immigrant, or if your a man, woman or trans person (where women obviously are more privileged than trans people). There’s a lot more I could write but I’m stopping here. Hopefully this won’t impact my work that much, for example we already have gender neutral bathrooms (not stalls, but separate rooms with no markings/symbols) and as of yet no mention of putting pronouns in email-signatures etc. Still, I feel a bit sad that this is what it has come to. Almost no mention of LGB, just trans.

25 comments

[–] Tabitha_Tuesday 29 points Edited

You should complain about being called a birther and how incredibly disgusting that is, along with how inappropriate and inadequate (considering the complete lack of scientific evidence), this "training" was.

They had an anonymous questionnaire but they only wanted to know how useful the whole seminar was. There was a comment section though, maybe I could write there!

I had one of these education seminars last week. What I notice is that we never had them for lesbians and gays. We have only had them since the TQ+ reared their heads. About 10% was about LGB. 90% of the education was on the TQ. Like your seminar, one is led to believe if you are cisgender you are in a position of privilege.

Yes, the whole ethos is contradictory and no, nobody asked any serious questions.

[–] SecondSkin 16 points Edited

Or for women, or people with disabilities, or any other protected group the majority of the time.

If it’s the UK I’d be asking to see their equality impact assessment required under the public sector equality duty.

If organisations are prioritising one protected characteristic over all others then they’d likely fail their public sector equality duty, unless they have an equality impact assessment that shows there’s valid reasons for this.

I’d also be checking what the trainers say is online with our laws (it rarely is) and asking the employer if their insurance pays out in the event they are sued for this. And for safeguarding risk assessments around any spaces or services covered by single sex exemptions.

And using formal grievance procedures when necessary. Given we have several court cases setting precedence here.

But these actions are dependent on country.

And on what an experienced pain in the fucking ass I am on this topic, after lots of experience fighting schools on it.

Op- if it’s not safe to be direct in challenging your employer, can you do the playing stupid routine? The Socratic method of asking questions that reveal the problems? If gentle questions pretending to be confused on the issues make the employer see the problem, that could help. The suicide fake stats especially, they go against the Samaritan’s recommendations (listened to by government here) on how suicide should be talked about in the media. I’d be suggesting that after the training I wanted to be a good ally so went to read up on how to help someone who is suicidal and came across the Samaritan’s advice that telling certain groups they are at higher risk of suicide because of belonging to that group, risks promoting it to them. And because of that I looked into it further and checked the studies and found they are not about suicide but depression/are not studies/or the real stats: like GIDS at tavi even admitted that children referred to them only have a very slight increase in risk of suicidal feelings than the average population. And I wanted to let them know incase showing vulnerable trans people this false information about their risk of suicide leads to them killing themselves. Or the organisation being seen as being unhelpful and unsupportive to trans employees. That might be an approach safe to take even if it isn’t safe to be direct?

[–] m0RT_1 16 points Edited

Take comfort in the fact that this training event is just a tick-a-box HR exercise, the majority of people will roll their eyes and go back to what they were doing.

You are right it is very fashionable for LGB, Indigenous, Migrants, and Disability advocates to all be expected to be subservient to the cult of trans at the moment. He has had his little 15min, he can fuck off now.

Since my field is predominantly female, even the males are mostly part of the woke brigade. I obviously don’t have an issue with LGB-people (I’m bi myself) and of course we need to platform different sexualities and cultures (I work in the art field), but the trans-thing is taking over so much. The new progressive flag is even up at the work place.

Oh how fun. The AGPs are making sure everyone knows they’re the Brahmins of the new caste system created in western countries. Everyone who doesn’t go along with their oppression religion better watch it, lest we’re branded terfs. See, they need the freedom to mock and hate women and predate kids with impunity.

“A trans man is a person born in a girl’s body”

I was born in a girl's body, Does that make me and every other female on the planet a trans man?

it sounds more like an extremely poorly executed indoctrination session than anything vaguely relevant to promoting equality.

pretty gross that a pride organisation, which i'm guessing claims to stand for LGB too, is ignoring them in their own equality seminars.

He opens up about himself so much to say

The few trans persons I have known could talk about themselves endlessly. Tried but was unable to have a normal conversation with them.

I’m positive my job will have one of these seminars soon. I plan to attempt to skip it or do an alternate seminar under it being a violation of my religious beliefs.

I hope if I have to do it it’s by Zoom; my wifi will be tricky so I’ll have my camera off the whole time. If it’s person, fuck it, I’ll bring a novel. Probably JKR or Robert Galbraith.

I would be hilarious if someone took Harry Potter to one of those seminars. Or just a huge Hogwarts house scarf.

I recommend going just to know exactly what they are saying. I was happy to knit while listening to the recording (during work hours), knowing I could pause at any time to rant into my notes what to post here later 😄

Load more (2 comments)