Gender Propaganda at Work

submitted by WildApples from self.GenderCritical

The management at my job is super woke, and they are continually trying to push gender on us. We had to take a training on bias that was very politicized in contrast to other such trainings I've had to take for work. At one point the speaker asked for audience reactions to the trans rights movement. People were silent, probably afraid of saying the wrong thing, and the speaker jumped in to inform us that they are trans, that trans people have a lot of hardship and trauma, and that people who support the trans movement do not have bias. So the speaker basically shut down discussion of gender issues and implied that anyone who does not support trans rights in every way is a bad person equivalent to a racist.

Before that training was even over, we were scheduled for another training on how to be sensitive to gender issues. We have also been scheduled for another training on gender in which we will be taught how to create "gender euphoria." I am not sure if that means euphoria for ourselves (inapplicable since I do not believe in gender) or for others who are trans. I am guessing it is the latter, and I find that insanely problematic. It is very unhealthy to teach people that they have to control other people's emotions with their own behavior. That is what enables abuse and narcissism. I hate where all of this is going, and it is so frustrating to not be able to speak my mind about it at work.

all 36 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]bluetinfoilhat 15 insightful - 4 fun15 insightful - 3 fun16 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

The gender euphoria seems gross. Like having to give trans women boners by role playing with them.

[–]kwallio 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I thought gender euphoria was a trans euphemism for getting a sexual thrill out of cross dressing. I'm getting supreme confusion as to why your work is making you go through this. Isn't compelling someone to participate in someone else's sex life kind of rapey?

[–]Femaleisnthateful 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I don't understand why workplaces choose to squander employee productivity on these useless sessions. I assume it's so they can claim that they can get their 'diversity and inclusiveness' certification, regardless of the reality that this 'training' fosters divisiveness and resentment. I feel fortunate that so far my exposure to gender ideology at work has been people voluntarily putting pronouns in their email signature. I hate seeing it, and I'm mentally steeling myself for when management starts applying more pressure and I have to confront this directly. Do you not have an HR or some anonymous way you can express your sentiment?

[–]WildApples[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No, I don't. In fact, they invited comments after the first training and I might have written something but there was no option to provide the feedback anonymously.

I am worried about the email signatures also. I fear that the increased interest in these training is a precursor to management pressuring us to put our pronouns in our e-mails. I will stand firm on that point, but I am not eager to have that battle.

[–]jjdub7Gay Male Guest Commentator 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I might have written something but there was no option to provide the feedback anonymously.

This is why men just have to bite the bullet and speak their minds, because we have relative immunity from the type of backlash most women would inevitably face.

Once 2-3 people speak up, the dam will break in all but the most ultra-woke workplaces, and it becomes impossible to punish everyone.

[–]ShieldMaiden 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agreed and I hope more men do.

[–]linda_senora 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I am extremely sorry you have to go through with this.

I take it you cannot skip this 'training' sessions, can you?

[–]WildApples[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks. They are mandatory.

[–]JoanofArc5 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It’s not your job to create gender euphoria. Ugh.

[–]BEB 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This is why those of us who can push back on gender ideology should - and I know that's not many of us. But those of us who can call utter bullshit on the Church of Genderology without suffering too many consequences need to be vocal.

And there's a way to do it, if you're scared to be labeled a TERF - play dumb! Ask questions as if it were five years ago, like, "I'm sorry, did you just say that women can have penises? Really? How? "

In these sessions, keep asking the questions that we could ask freely mere moments ago and let the Wokes dig themselves farther and farther into irrationality in front of an audience.

In the meantime, those of us not beholden to corporations, or who won't suffer consequences, need to be bold. Call a spade a spade.

Call Rachel Levine a demented male who wants to chemically castrate kids and who shouldn't be anywhere near the US healthcare system especially given that COVID response needs accurate statistics on biological sex and "Rachel" thinks one can change sex by wishing it.

Time to take the gloves off. I'm so glad for Super Straight/Bi/Gay/Lesbian because at least it opened up the conversation.

[–]jjdub7Gay Male Guest Commentator 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

And there's a way to do it, if you're scared to be labeled a TERF - play dumb! Ask questions as if it were five years ago, like, "I'm sorry, did you just say that women can have penises? Really? How? "

YES, this. Granted, you'll probably be treated to a long lecture in order to "educate" you on the sensitive topic of men's ladyfeels, but its an effective way to dissent without putting yourself at too much risk.

[–]BEB 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I have friends who have been through the type of corporate gender seminars in the US the OP describes. These are very hard workers, focused on their high-powered jobs, kids, etc., so had no idea about gender ideology and so did ask "dumb" questions during these seminars, trying to figure it out.

Gender ideology does sound absolutely insane to people who haven't been paying attention to Twitter/SM/ the media in general for the last few years, which is many Americans.

My friends weren't penalized for their innocent questions, which is why I think asking "dumb" questions during these gender seminars might be the way to expose the sheer irrationality of gender ideology to everyone else in the room. Or rather, Zoom.

[–]jjdub7Gay Male Guest Commentator 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Ugh, my employer is also relatively woke, and this will definitely be next on their list.

There HAS to be some point where courts recognize that the trans movement has all the elements of a religion and acts accordingly to limit these types of insane trainings.

Preferably in a series of hostile work environment lawsuits that really, really convince companies' management that this was a horrible, horrible, costly idea.

[–]BEB 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I read an article about a woman who's trying this tactic (fighting gender ideology as a religion). I think she's a lawyer and she's collecting information to bolster her case. If I can find the article I will post it.

So much time is going to be spent fighting gender ideology through the judicial branch and exposing it for the lunatic hoax that it is... What are the Democrats thinking legislating gender ideology when it's all going to be undone by the courts, with the net result being making the Democrats look like guliable fools or tools of Big Gender's $$$?

[–]WildApples[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That's been my thought too, but if the Equality Act passes that argument will be harder to make since, not only will gender be legally protected, but the bill will also eliminate religious defenses to gender discrimination.

[–]BEB 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I hope the friggin' Republicans step up to the plate and filibuster the Equality Act.

I am honestly starting to feel that few politicians on either side understand the ramifications of passing the Equality Act, because it has such horrible consequences for so many different groups and yet the push back has been so tepid, even on the GOP side.

[–]one1won 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Fun read https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/religion_and_the_constitution

In the first instance, the Establishment Clause states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

The first instance, in Article VI, is a proscription of any religious tests as a requisite qualification for public service.

Compelled pronouns? "TWAW"?

I see a problem with the wording "official" religion. Maybe the EA would make Genderwoowoo conscripted beliefs "official", legally?

BRB, donating spring charity budget to WOLF...

[–]BEB 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I know that this is an imperfect analogy, but what I'm waiting for is a Scopes Monkey type-type trial where someone challenges the sex-is-a-spectrum-yet-you-can-be-the-opposite-sex-by-saying-you-are crowd in court.

My hope would be that the fantasy trial would finally allow biologists to confront the gender woo religion in court. Also that the ACLU, which was on side of science during the Scopes trial, be exposed as Big Gender-funded hypocrites when it inevitably sides with the Church of Genderology.

[–]BEB 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I read an article about a woman who's trying this tactic (fighting gender ideology as a religion). I think she's a lawyer and she's collecting information to bolster her case. If I can find the article I will post it.

So much time is going to be spent fighting gender ideology through the judicial branch and exposing it for the lunatic hoax that it is... What are the Democrats thinking legislating gender ideology when it's all going to be undone by the courts, with the net result being making the Democrats look like guliable fools or tools of Big Gender's $$$?

[–]jjdub7Gay Male Guest Commentator 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I read an article about a woman who's trying this tactic (fighting gender ideology as a religion). I think she's a lawyer and she's collecting information to bolster her case. If I can find the article I will post it.

Sounds like if you're talking about someone other than Cathy Brennan (Baltimore lesbian radfem lawyer who ranks in most TRA's TERF Top 5), then she needs to team up with Cathy Brennan. That woman fights trans ideology obsessively.

And RE: Big Gender - the Dems seem to pull these antics in every social issue-arena possible because the court battles cost them nothing and the distractions lead to crises, which are never let go to waste.

Also, Big reminder that Big Gender == Big Pharma == Big Donors, exactly

[–]BEB 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Cathy Brennan has changed and now seems to be in an open feud with the US Terven. These days, to a casual observer like myself, Brennan almost seems on the side of the gender ideologists against rad fems.

I think there's more to Big Gender than the obvious profits for the medical and pharmaceutical industries, because the same laws destroying women and gays' sex-based rights by changing the legal definition of "sex" are being pushed in countries that have universal healthcare.

I think that there is something sinister behind all of this, because the intent seems to be to have humankind detach ourselves from our physical reality.

[–]jjdub7Gay Male Guest Commentator 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

because the intent seems to be to have humankind detach ourselves from our physical reality.

Yes, I agree, this is much more so the drive behind it, all packaged into the beautifully-wrapped package of social justice.

I just read about efforts to implement "restorative justice" into the US justice system, where perps and victims are supposed to "talk it out" to make restitution. How is that supposed to work for rape victims?

[–]BEB 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I really feel that there are very sinister forces driving all of this. And my job for years was to pay attention to events all over the world and try to figure out the larger patterns.

I have seen rad feminists already protest against "restorative justice" specifically because of their concern for rape survivors. How horrible would it be for a survivor to have to talk through her experience with the perp? Horrific.

[–]ShieldMaiden 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is all to push transhumanism on us ultimately. Make us into inhuman things. Of course women get to enjoy like no time of being fully fledged human beings legally before male supremacists seek to dismantle to human race itself without our consent. Fucking degenerates.

[–]eddyelric 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

we will be taught how to create "gender euphoria."

No thanks, I've got a vibrator at home, lol.

[–]Rationalmind 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Report it to the EEOC or your state if they do that.

[–]WildApples[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The EEOC is on the gender bandwagon for sure. Biden's gender identity executive order on his first day in office directed federal agencies to incorporate gender into their activities and policies, so there is no way the EEOC under Biden will be helpful.

[–]BEB 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I either heard someone talk about, or read somewhere, that the EEOC is now complicit in enforcing gender ideology in the workplace. I'll see if I can find it.

[–]Rationalmind 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Great, I would be interested in reading this.

[–]BEB 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

On the EEOC & trans issues by a GC law professor. I think she's written or perhaps spoken more on the gender identity takeover of the EEOC; that might be further down her Twitter timeline.

The Williams Center is "a think tank at UCLA Law dedicated to conducting rigorous, independent research on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy."

W. Burlette Carter @wddaughter · Jan 24 Biden has named new chairs and vice chairs of the EEOC. The Vice Chair is Jocelyn Samuels, former head of the Williams Center, which has produced IMHO quite a bit of questionable writing in support of replacing sex with gender identity.

The EEOC is the agency that brought many of the lawsuits that altered US Law on trans issues in particular. They brought the Harris case and pushed the stereotyping theory mentioned above.

It is true that, in some cases, sex should not matter. There is a proper stereotyping theory in discrimination principles, but it has nothing to do with replacing sex with gender id.

In a Senate compromise, Samuels was appointed for a 6 mos term, but I think she can extend that term for an additional 6 months. I won’t get into the details of how that extension works, but consider her there for a year.

https://twitter.com/wddaughter/status/1353333552449007616

[–]Rationalmind 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

In a Senate compromise, Samuels was appointed for a 6 mos term, but I think she can extend that term for an additional 6 months. I won’t get into the details of how that extension works, but consider her there for a year.

The president is the one who appoints the head of agencies. The agencies are considered a part of the executive branch. Biden's move is not aytypical. If the vice chair is a pro-trans lobbyist, then there is a problem. The people within the agencies are usually non-partisan and care about the agency.

[–]BEB 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I seem to remember hearing or reading that the EEOC itself was taken over on a rank-and-file level by gender ideologists. I don't know anything about the EEOC - would that even be possible?

[–]jjdub7Gay Male Guest Commentator 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Eh, this was one of my first thoughts, too, but the EEOC is ultra-liberal and may even sweep these types of legitimate complaints under the rug using "administrative discretion" (that they don't have).

It may literally have to come down to hostile workplace lawsuits to turn the tide.

[–]Rationalmind 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Eh, this was one of my first thoughts, too, but the EEOC is ultra-liberal and may even sweep these types of legitimate complaints under the rug using "administrative discretion" (that they don't have).

Can't know until someone tries. I don't think the EEOC is all that biased because the law itself is not biased. They don't really have administrative discretion unless you mean whether to prosecute or not. They'll investigate and warn at least. But hostile workplace lawsuits from private attorneys would work too.

[–]BEB 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Didn't the EEOC participate on the side of the genderists in one of the gender lawsuits before the Supreme Court? (can you tell I'm not a lawyer?)

OK - found it.

Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/the-supreme-court-should-not-rewrite-title-vii/

[–]jjdub7Gay Male Guest Commentator 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

unless you mean whether to prosecute or not

Yes, this precisely. Not to drag left-right politics in as an example, but when it comes to federal law enforcement, the progressive/Democrat parties tend to be overtly favored.

Should be interesting to see if anyone starts filing related suits for Critical Race Theory trainings.