Anonymous wrote:All I can say is, I wish I had been smart enough 10 years ago to see around the corner at what was coming, and to start a "Diversity Training" business.

These people can literally come up with anything and make $$$ selling programs to companies who will pay $$$ just to say they are "training" their staff.

Yes, OP, it's ridiculous.

+1

So many people are making $$$ and taking advantage at the moment.

They should do what they do with natural disasters and double the penalties for looting etc. only this case it’s people pocketing money from charities or taking advantage with these ridiculous and offensive indoctrination courses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All I can say is, I wish I had been smart enough 10 years ago to see around the corner at what was coming, and to start a "Diversity Training" business.

These people can literally come up with anything and make $$$ selling programs to companies who will pay $$$ just to say they are "training" their staff.

Yes, OP, it's ridiculous.

OP here, its still a great idea!!! You can market the fact that you don't use foods to explain people to other people.

Many times have I heard the suggestion to crack a white egg, and crack a brown egg and discover that they're the same inside, just like white and brown people!

Ugh, the genderbread person is very "out" as a way of explaining these issues, it's like dumbed down elementary school stuff. I guess it checks the box for the company?

Gay woman here and I would be pissed if I or my colleagues had to waste time on this kind of crap at work. Given we are feds I’m almost surprised we have not, but we are busy and I would prefer to stick to facts and science over this fluff if we are to receive any type of LGBTQ sensitivity training. The ideology of gender is not more palatable in cookie form.
Remember the Golden Rule? That is really all we need.

OP here, my genderqueer teen confirms that this graphic is infantilizing...the content and sliders, etc, are fine, and even a good explanation, but the Genderbread Person concept makes them cringe. And laugh. I guess it not as offensive to some as it looks to me.

Thanks for sharing your perspectives!

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it's childish, but there are many people who have grown up with stereotyped inbred bigotry, some of whom don't choose to understand tolerance and understanding of protected classes. This is an attempt to distill the information down for the lowest common denominator and ensure that they can't feign ignorance of what the training is trying to impart. And later if they are accused of non-inclusive or hostile behavior, that HR and management can refer to the training and say that these people were trained in what the company policies were at a very basic level and that they were expected to adhere to the policies.

OP here, ok, now this makes sense. So this ends up being a CYA thing more than trying to make people better. If it makes people better, great, if not, it at least wasn't made too complicated for them.

Anonymous wrote:Gay person here, I think it’s fine. And to the Immediate PP I totally agree. I work for local government and just had to do a webinar training on inclusiveness. Waste of time but now my agency can say we all had the training.

OP here, just curious: how old are you? I am wondering if my age and perspective is making me view this one way over another. It may get the job done, if the "job" is to say the training was completed. Box checked.

But if there is still at least the glimmer of recognition that the training is supposed to actually make people think differently, shouldn't it matter how this is presented?

I have a friend who addresses imagery about people with disabilities on her facebook page, and its one of those things you look at and just sigh once she points out the absurdities. Of course they are reductionist, AND inaccurate.

This genderbread person may have some form of accuracy going for it, maybe, except for the fact that it's a goddang cookie and not a person. I guess I'm just not going to be able to get on board with the cookie thing.

I guess it made it possible for the artist to not make a body of any particular shape, but also make it something with which someone has some kind of positive association.

I am officially overthinking. But I submit the creators of this were underthinking...or something.

That’s what my children’s elementary used.

Yes, it's childish, but there are many people who have grown up with stereotyped inbred bigotry, some of whom don't choose to understand tolerance and understanding of protected classes. This is an attempt to distill the information down for the lowest common denominator and ensure that they can't feign ignorance of what the training is trying to impart. And later if they are accused of non-inclusive or hostile behavior, that HR and management can refer to the training and say that these people were trained in what the company policies were at a very basic level and that they were expected to adhere to the policies.

Anonymous wrote:All I can say is, I wish I had been smart enough 10 years ago to see around the corner at what was coming, and to start a "Diversity Training" business.

These people can literally come up with anything and make $$$ selling programs to companies who will pay $$$ just to say they are "training" their staff.

Yes, OP, it's ridiculous.

OP here, its still a great idea!!! You can market the fact that you don't use foods to explain people to other people.

Gay person here, I think it’s fine. And to the Immediate PP I totally agree. I work for local government and just had to do a webinar training on inclusiveness. Waste of time but now my agency can say we all had the training.

Anonymous wrote:It looks fine to me. People are often intentionally ignorant and this dumbs it down to a level that they can't pretend to misunderstand.

OP here, ok. I get the "cant pretend to misunderstand" part.

I guess if I was used to seeing equivalent cartoonish graphics to explain people's differences, I might have a different response. I'll have to ask DH if they had a dumbed down graphic for racial diversity training or understanding people with disabilities. <cringe> Because people still don't get those things either.

All I can say is, I wish I had been smart enough 10 years ago to see around the corner at what was coming, and to start a "Diversity Training" business.

These people can literally come up with anything and make $$$ selling programs to companies who will pay $$$ just to say they are "training" their staff.

Yes, OP, it's ridiculous.

It looks fine to me. People are often intentionally ignorant and this dumbs it down to a level that they can't pretend to misunderstand.

DH informs me they had LGBTQ sensitivity training at work (this is new and part of a series of other workplace inclusivity/senstivity training/workshop topics/groups).

This was accomplished with, among other things, a graphic called Genderbread Person.

I have never figured out how to attach an image on DCUM but its easy to find on google.

Am I wrong to find the use of a cookie to explain a person infantilizing and kind of, uh, insensitive? Possibly dehumanizing?

This is FOR ADULTS AT THE WORKPLACE.

I realize the need for something simple sometimes to explain to someone who doesn't get it. I just don't understand the use of the cookie and why that's good. Maybe its just because you can't forget it?

I told my husband I thought it was pretty clearly offensive, and possibly wasn't going to make anyone who identifies as LGBTQ+ feel any more accepted at the workplace.

I don't consider myself an oversensitive person. But if I had to have my nature explained to other adults at my place of work using a cookie person, I'd be less than thrilled. I'm 52,grew up with gay couples as family friends, and I cant imagine anyone choosing to use cookies to explain them to anyone in a professional setting.

Am I wrong? Is it better than nothing? Help me understand, if possible.