EXCLUSIVE!
How did HR get ‘trans inclusion’ so wrong? The reckoning starts today, as we expose deep ideological capture at the Chartered Institute of Personnel Development – and its CEO’s friendship with the trans activist Katie Neeves.
We ask whether the CIPD was fit to create the ‘trans inclusion’ guidance that thousands of UK employers – including government departments and the NHS – have baked into their HR policies in the last few years.
We also reveal why the police were called to investigate a ‘hate crime’ after a ‘sexualised’ internal training session went catastrophically wrong…
WHAT IS HAPPENING?
Today we reveal that dozens of employees at the UK’s HR industry body were told they faced a police investigation for a ‘hate crime’ after complaining about an internal training webinar in which transgender activist Katie Neeves said wearing girls’ clothes felt ‘dirty’ and ‘naughty’ – and that trying on Neeves’s sister’s knickers aged four ‘felt so right’.
(See clips below).
Peter Cheese, the £300k-a-year chief executive of the CIPD, is understood to have seemed ‘friendly’ with Neeves at the time of the incident (February 2022) and appears to have sympathised with the trainer (a biological male who transitioned aged 48) over his female employees who said the content was inappropriate.
It is unclear how close Cheese and Neeves are, or where and when they first met, but both spoke at the MAD World Summit in 2021.
While Neeves’ training session attracted some press coverage at the time, this is the first time it has been revealed that it was for the CIPD.
The police investigation has also been hushed up until now.
WHO IS KATIE NEEVES?
Katie Neeves is the founder of gender diversity training consultancy Cool2Btrans, and one of the UK’s best known ‘trans inclusion’ trainers.
Neeves – who is open about previously being known as Martin – is also a prominent trans activist, and is often seen campaigning for ‘trans rights’ and for puberty blockers for gender-confused children. More recently, Neeves has been protesting against the recent Supreme Court ruling which stated that trans women (biological males, like Neeves) should not enter women’s single-sex spaces.
Despite taking a strong stance on contentious political issues, Neeves’ clients have included Deliveroo, Waterstones, Aviva, National Grid, Ofcom, NHS Business Services Authority, Virgin Media O2, BP, Facebook, the Crown Prosecution Service and ‘various Police forces’.
Neeves regularly appears at ‘LGBT+’ awards events, has co-hosted two series of the BBC podcast Time For Some LGBTea, and was accepted as a ‘UN Women’ UK delegate to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women in 2024.
Those who are not familiar with Neeves’ work might recognise the name (and face) from JK Rowling’s infamous ‘April Fools’ thread on X, in which she deliberately ‘misgendered’ 10 well-known, UK-based biological males who present themselves as ‘trans women.’ Neeves appeared at number nine.
The purpose was to test the response of Police Scotland, who had suggested that misgendering would become a criminal offence from 1 April 2024. Also listed were the model Munroe Bergdorf, TV presenter India Willoughby, and Scottish rapist Isla Bryson. Neeves was not happy, and published a long open letter to JK Rowling in response.
Strangely enough, Rowling’s tweet makes reference to ‘a leaked 2022 webinar’ – but it seems unlikely that she knew it would turn out to be so significant:
THE EMAIL THAT SHOCKED US!
This email was sent to the 30-40 CIPD employees who attended Neeves’ training session, in February 2022, from a senior DEI manager at the organisation.
Don’t forget: the CIPD is meant to guide other UK employers on how to manage difficult staffing issues and incidents…
WHY THIS STORY MATTERS
In April 2025, a ruling by the UK Supreme Court exposed the fact that many organisations had misunderstood the Equality Act 2010 for the last 15 years. As the judges made clear, ‘sex’, ‘female’ and ‘male’ refer to biological sex. Self-reported ‘gender identity’ or holding a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) are irrelevant.
Why were so many organisations running a sort of ‘self-ID’ policy (with or without a GRC), apparently unaware this was unlawful? Who advised them – or confused them?
Reporting by This Isn’t Working – including dozens of conversations with HR professionals, some at director level – finds that all roads lead back to the CIPD.
Its members – including HR teams within corporations, most of the UK’s government departments, and the NHS – relied on the CIPD for unbiased, legally accurate guidance to help them create policies tailored to their own organisation.
Having failed to provide any guidance in this area until September 2023, the CIPD finally published a 32-page document that was oddly framed, and full of flaws. You can read it here (just don’t use it!)…
The legal problems were highlighted in a letter (dated October 2023) from Maya Forstater, co-founder of the human rights charity Sex Matters here, and by the gender critical industry group SEEN in HR. Eventually, the CIPD held meetings with both organisations, but without any urgency or enthusiasm, and follow-up was sluggish.
The framing was also misleading – presenting a complex political, social and medical issue as a straightforward requirement for colleagues to provide instant, enthusiastic affirmation and a long list of workplace accommodations for employees’ self-described gender identity in order to be ‘inclusive’. Activist language was used throughout the document.
Employees with gender critical beliefs appeared to be an afterthought, and no mention was made of employees who might be parents of trans-identifying children, or of trans widows, detransitioners, or children of transitioners. Nor was there any mention of the broad range of views held within the so-called ‘LGBT community’.
Shorter, slightly improved guidance was quietly published in November 2024, but the CIPD never said the 2023 guidance should be shredded, so it is likely many employers continued to use it.
Here is This Isn’t Working host Tanya de Grunwald (in conversation with the women’s rights campaigner Kellie-Jay Keen) explaining further problems with the guidance (starts at 57.00)…
DID THE CIPD BACK THE SUPREME COURT RULING?
Yes – and an interim update was quickly released, advising its members to seek legal advice while they worked on new guidance. These efforts were welcomed by Sex Matters.
However, the CIPD has not addressed growing anger from its smartest members over its failure to acknowledge the fact they were given misleading guidance – and many have made the point that an extensive re-write should not have been necessary.
The CIPD appears to have failed to own up to its mistakes, seemingly prioritising its own reputation (and covering its tracks) over its members’ best interests, including around matters that create serious legal risk for member organisations, and distress and injustice for their employees.
As Neil Morrison, the highly respected HR director of Severn Trent, told This Isn’t Working during a recent episode with Maya Forstater: ‘They [the CIPD] got this wrong. And they weren’t as explicit or as honest as they could have been.’ (Strong words, from the famously diplomatic Morrison).
PART 1: THE TRAINING SESSION
So, what happened at Katie Neeves’ training session for the CIPD? A former CIPD employee has told This Isn’t Working how events unfolded:
‘In February 2022, it was announced that the gender diversity trainer Katie Neeves would be presenting an online seminar, as part of LGBT+ History Month. Around 40 people attended, including Peter Cheese and all the directors at the CIPD.
‘I remember before the seminar started, Katie Neeves saying “This training should be mandatory – it shouldn’t be optional,” and Peter Cheese saying: “Yes, yes, I totally agree, this should be mandatory.”
‘It was clear from the way they interacted that they had met and hung out before – they certainly seemed to be on friendly terms.
‘The sexualised, suggestive content started immediately, and my first thought was “Hang on, you can’t say this at work!” but nobody interrupted. It seemed like everyone was under a spell.
‘I was thinking: If this was just a guy who wasn’t wearing lipstick or a woman’s outfit, what he’s saying would be completely unacceptable.
‘The training lasted for about an hour. Despite Katie’s mumsy presenting style, the content was undisputably sexualised in places, and he seemed to particularly enjoy saying the words “knickers”, “naughty”and “dirty”.
‘The session was online, but I felt very uncomfortable, and I was glad we were not in the same room as this person.
‘In terms of employer advice, Katie told us not to say “born a boy” but instead: “assigned at birth.” We were instructed to allow people to use the bathroom of their chosen gender, without question – advice that was legally wrong then and now.
‘Insultingly for some of us on the call, Katie insisted that he is a lesbian – as, despite transitioning, he remains attracted to women. He also called LGB Alliance a far-right hate group which I thought was hostile and divisive.
‘The whole thing rested on whether the audience bought into the idea that Katie is now a woman. For those of us who don’t believe in gender identity, we were spending time in the middle of our working day listening to a cross-dresser describing his fetish for wearing women’s clothing.
‘He was trying to gaslight us while we were just trying to do our jobs. We should not have been put in a position where we had to point this out to our employer.
‘Afterwards, I raised a complaint verbally and in writing and spoke to other CIPD employees who agreed that the content was deeply inappropriate in places. But before they could respond, another employee leaked details of the seminar and it all kicked off from there.’
One of the attendees leaked clips from Katie Neeves’ CIPD webinar, which we are publishing today because we believe it is important they are seen.
Here is Neeves on cross-dressing feeling ‘wrong’, ‘dirty’ and ‘naughty”…
On Neeves’ childhood experiences trying on girls’ knickers…
On sexual attention from white van drivers…
Instructing HR professionals to say ‘assigned male/female at birth’…
Telling CIPD employees that ‘gender is the sex of your brain’…
Giving bad legal advice on single-sex spaces (remember, the audience is staff at the organisation that is meant to advise other employers on this kind of thing)…
On why trans women like Neeves are lesbians…
A dating tip for cross-dressers…
And advice that anyone considering coming out as transgender at work should ‘just go for it’…
PART 2: THE LEAK
After the session, the recording of the webinar was made available to CIPD staff for a limited period. One employee (not our source) published clips on X (which our source had, too) and wrote a piece for The Critic under the pseudonym Sarah Summers, titled What a load of pants (here). \
Reduxx also covered it in a story called “Trans Educator” Describes Arousal At Wearing Women’s Clothes, Denies Biological Sex, which the popular TV writer Graham Linehan syndicated in his Substack.
Although the CIPD was not identified as the employer that hosted the online seminar, Katie Neeves was identified.
On LinkedIn, Neeves expressed distress and anger at the clips being leaked, and the backlash, as well as confirming an intention to report the matter to the police, and a desire for the person who leaked the clips to lose their job.
Here are some of Neeves’ posts from around that time…
PART 3: THE INVESTIGATION
This is where things get a bit fuzzy. Was a crime committed? How did the case conclude? It’s unclear. Our CIPD source never heard from the police, and Leicestershire Police (Neeves’ local force) say they can’t help without a crime reference number.
What we do know is that Neeves’ complaint was taken seriously by the police, as an officer was assigned, and an investigation began.
How? Because that email to the CIPD who attended the training session says so. Here it is again:
We also know Peter Cheese was angry about the leak. Our source recalls:
‘We were all called to an all-company meeting hosted by Peter Cheese, where he made clear that he was furious about the leak. He said it was completely unacceptable that an external guest had been bullied by a member of staff – and this went against the CIPD’s values.
‘The person who had leaked the clips and story had “behaved in a disturbing and upsetting way”, he said.
‘He warned us that they were going to be getting to the bottom it, and whoever it was would be facing a disciplinary, and that the police would be involved. Peter was visibly angry, and didn’t seem to care who knew.
‘Soon after that, those of us who attended the seminar received the email from the lead of the DEI team, warning us that we were all under investigation by the police.’
The source also recalls that a sub-set of attendees were required to attend an additional three-hour training session on equality and respect in the workplace, by another diversity trainer, saying:
‘It wasn’t clear why this group was selected, it was just put in people’s calendar. It was weird, but nobody asked questions because they didn’t want to create suspicion that they had been responsible for the leak.
‘For an organisation that is supposed to look out for employee wellbeing, I remember thinking how badly this was all being handled. In my view, they prioritised the wrong person – Katie Neeves.
‘They should have prioritised their female emoployees, listened to our complaints and apologised for the session. Instead, they scolded those who spoke out about how weird the whole thing was.
‘Their response was extraordinary. Why was an organisation that promotes psychological safety terrorising its staff like this?
‘It would have been bad from any big employer, but the CIPD is supposed to set standards for all other UK employers on how to handle difficult situations – yet they allowed this horrible situation to develop, and turned against their own staff.
‘I’ve worked at lots of companies and I’ve never seen anything like it. It was shocking to witness how they let a bad situation get worse and worse.’
PART 4: A CAPTURED CULTURE
The CIPD’s handling of this incident – and Peter Cheese’s apparent rush to protect Katie Neeves – suggests that the organisation was unable to see this issue clearly.
And our source had additional evidence that indicates that key staff members were ‘captured’ by trans ideology…
‘WOMAN’ BANNED BY COMMS TEAM
The source says the head of comms was: ‘Nice, but really really captured [by trans ideology]. I clearly remember her saying that the word ‘woman’ must never appear in any internal or external communications as “it is not inclusive”. That’s how the CIPD ended up with posts about menopause where the word “woman” wasn’t used once.’ Like this one…
MAYA FORSTATER’S CASE ‘COMPLETELY IGNORED‘
‘Every tiny little tribunal was always brought up internally and debated extensively at the CIPD, but when Maya Forstater won her landmark discrimination claim in July 2022, it was completely ignored,’ said the ex-employee. ‘I said: “This looks quite important – should we do some comms about it?” And they all just shook their heads. It was very mysterious.’
(The employee was right. Forstater’s case was pivotal in establishing that ‘gender critical’ belief is included under the protected characteristic ‘Religion or Belief’. It is regularly cited by employees who insist on their right to hold and express such beliefs in their workplace, despite such views being considered unfashionable – and even uncacceptable – by some employers.)
STYLE GUIDE LITTERED WITH ACTIVIST LANGUAGE
While the word ‘woman’ seems to have returned to the CIPD’s style guide since our source left the CIPD, a number of contested terms are still listed in the A-Z for their copywriters. Here are a few:
NO QUALITY CONTROL OVER TRAINERS PLATFORMED BY LOCAL CIPD BRANCHES
Concerns were flagged more than two years ago over the calibre of trainers being platformed at local CIPD branches at events attended by HR professionals from local – often smaller – organisations.
Might inexperienced HR people be given the impression that unqualified trainers promoting unevidenced ideas were CIPD-approved, when they were not?
One example was Che Barnes – now known as Che Young – who ‘educated’ members of the CIPD’s Gloucestershire, and Hereford and Worcestershire branches about trangender lions, intersex bears, and genderfluid orangutans, apparently unchallenged…
Barnes’ content was satirised by the popular YouTuber ‘The EDI Jester’ (a teacher named Barry Wall) in a series of videos, but the CIPD never explained how such kooky ideas had come to be platformed to CIPD members under their brand.
At the time, it was assumed that a lapse in due diligence meant that CIPD branches were poorly supervised – but now it seems that standards may also have collapsed within the CIPD itself, when it comes to booking external trainers for internal CIPD staff sessions.
If unqualified trainers are filling CIPD employees’ heads with strange concepts presented as fact, should those people be trusted to produce clear-headed advice for other employers?
15 QUESTIONS FOR THE CIPD
We have sent this list to the CIPD. If you have further questions, please email them at press@cipd.co.uk and let us know if they reply…
- What is the nature of the relationship between the CIPD’s chief executive Peter Cheese, and the gender diversity trainer Katie Neeves?
- How was Katie Neeves selected as a suitable trainer to speak to CIPD staff about gender diversity? Was the planned content scrutinised in advance, and were Neeves’ strong and public political views considered? What fee did Neeves receive for this session?
- Neeves misrepresented the law at least once during the seminar, when stating that trans-identifying employees should use the bathroom of their choice. Why was this not challenged – either at the time, or after the event?
- During this webinar, Neeves described a history of ‘cross dressing’ including wearing Neeves’ sister’s knickers, and being told that wearing her clothes was ‘naughty’ and ‘dirty’ and ‘not what respectable people do.’ Does the CIPD consider that to be appropriate content for a professional training session?
- Neeves referred to LGB Alliance as a ‘hate group’ during this session. Why was this not challenged?
- It is understood that a police investigation followed Katie Neeves’ online seminar. What was the alleged crime, how many CIPD staff were questioned by the police, and how was the case concluded?
- Why were staff told not to speak about this incident externally – and why were they not advised to seek legal advice?
- What is the CIPD’s response to the suggestion that this incident was badly handled by the CIPD – including by Peter Cheese – and that staff are owed an apology?
- A number of organisations highlighted flaws in the CIPD guidance published in September 2023. Why was this not acted upon with greater urgency? And why was a broader range of perspectives not consulted when the guidance was being prepared – for example from Sex Matters, LGB Alliance and Genspect?
- Why has the CIPD still never expressly told members that there are serious problems with the 2023 guidance, and that they should not use it?
- Does the CIPD know which employers have been relying on the 2023 guidance – for example, have government departments and NHS trusts baked this guidance into their HR policies?
- Is it true that Maya Forstater’s case was ignored by CIPD staff – and was the word ‘woman’ banned at any time?
- Does the CIPD accept that its failure to maintain an impartial organisational culture within the CIPD (as evidenced in this post) led to a collapse in standards around the area of what it has been calling ‘trans inclusion’, making it unfit to advise other employers on this topic?
- Does the CIPD owe its members an apology for prioritising its own reputation over admitting its mistakes and flagging the legal risks members face if they have followed the CIPD’s poor quality advice on ‘trans inclusion’?
- Does the CIPD still consider that the organisation is fit for purpose? In light of the evidence presented in this article, will Peter Cheese consider his position as chief executive of the CIPD?
COULD THE CIPD COLLAPSE?
In the last six months, Tanya de Grunwald, host of This Isn’t Working (above), has heard from more than 200 HR professionals who are deeply unhappy with the CIPD – and it seems resentment has been building for years.
The CIPD’s unacknowledged failure around so-called ‘trans inclusion’ has compounded its members’ pre-existing frustration over the perceived collapse in quality of some of the CIPD’s output, its overtly political stance on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), its new obsession with ‘wellbeing’ (much of which is unevidenced), and a business model that maximises revenue – but minimises value for members.
‘An unpopular, self-appointed “leadership body” that has failed to maintain standards and impartiality is unsustainable – and it is unhelpful for the CIPD to pretend it is the solution, when in fact it is a big part of the problem.
‘The CIPD now faces a credibility crisis at time when it is disliked by a large proportion of the industry it claims to serve. In my view, its days of uncontested dominance in the HR industry are over.
‘Members who pay for their own CIPD membership complain of the CIPD’s “coercive” business model that requires them to stump up the substantial annual fee so that their CIPD qualification doesn’t lapse. (“Why? I don’t pay to renew my A-Levels every year…” said one).
‘Some ask whether it is right that the CIPD has charity status, and chartered status. Others are unhappy about being expected to pay to nominate themselves for the CIPD’s annual People Management Awards, and then to pay again to attend a glitzy dinner if they are nominated.
‘Only yesterday [Tuesday 3 June] a member posted on LinkedIn to say he was shocked by his renewal fee, and considering giving up membership – prompting comments from dozens of other HR professionals agreeing they were losing faith or had already left. And a straw poll by another LinkedIn user found that 60% of responses about the CIPD were ‘overtly negative‘.
‘And I found the same thing in December, when I posted about Peter Cheese’s £300k salary. The response was enormous.
‘No doubt these reality checks will be painful for Peter (and his vast team of 400 staff) – especially with the Festival of Work happening next week – but a reckoning is long overdue. The CIPD has only itself to blame for refusing to listen to its members’ entirely reasonable anger and frustration while there was still a chance to turn this around.’
CLEARING THE DEAD WOOD
Others may disagree, but de Grunwald believes that dismantling the CIPD’s dominance is an essential next step towards allowing employers to find solutions for their current and future challenges, and to fix the mistakes that have beem made around DEI in particular. She says:
‘However well-intentioned this work was, it has become clear that too much of what we are calling ‘DEI’ has become political, divisive and bad for business – and it is time for forensic analysis of what should stay, and what should go.
‘This includes some aspects of “trans inclusion”, which was approached without sufficient curiosity about the broad range of perspectives available, and consultation with all the groups that would be impacted by changes in policies and practices.
‘And that’s before we start talking about how DEI “targets” may have corrupted recruitment and promotion practices.’
Many HR professionals told de Grunwald they feel it is time for the market to open up to competitors, as the CIPD’s inexplicable monopoly on training and accreditation is leaving the HR industry poorly served:
‘I am reliably informed that less than 10% of HR professionals understand the Equality Act 2010, which is unacceptable. People who hold CIPD qualifications are turning up to job interviews unable to name the nine protected characteristics – and too many employment tribunals are exposing the fact that many HR people have no idea how to conduct a legally-compliant grievance procedure that ends in a peaceful and satisfactory outcome for all.’
And de Grunwald cites broader concerns about standards of behaviour within HR, and a collapse in public confidence in the profession:
‘Last week I was shocked to disover “HR Geek Squad” – a large community of HR “professionals” – insisting that using the F-word on LinkedIn and at work was them expressing their “authentic selves”.
‘The founder of this group – Michelle Hartley – has nearly 30,000 followers on LinkedIn. She is extremely popular with HR people despite, in my view, setting a dreadful example online. I was shocked to see that she is CIPD-qualified.
‘Her posts relating to the trans issue are one-sided and childish, and suggest she has no idea that she and her followers should remain impartial on issues like this. What is the CIPD teaching HR professionals, if they think this behaviour is fine?’
And de Grunwald says Hartley’s domineering, sloppy attitude appears to be something of a social contagion in HR:
I frequently see CIPD-qualified people on LinkedIn trashing anyone who doesn’t share their political views – apparently unaware that this is likely to include some of their colleagues.
‘No wonder people are losing faith in HR. In some workplaces, it looks like standards have completely collapsed – and a CIPD qualification is certainly no guarantee that its holder knows what they are doing, or will conduct themselves professionally. In which case, what is it for?’
WHERE DID THE GOOD PEOPLE GO?
Thankfully, de Grunwald discovered a larger (quieter!) group of high calibre, conscientious HR people who care about professionalism and standards are concerned that low quality hr ‘squads’ are dragging down standards by normalising bad behaviour.
Members also cited concerns about the disappearance of essential industry debate – something de Grunwald agrees with:
‘Many of the HR people I heard from noted that many of those speaking at the CIPD’s Festival of Work conference are sponsors of the event. They ask: Is this likely to create the robust, high quality discussion that our industry desperately needs?’
It is unclear how the CIPD’s monopoly on training, accreditation and publishing could be dismantled, but de Grunwald puts her faith in the notoriously ruthless providers in this space, who would love to steal the CIPD’s lunch:
‘I am confident that sharp-elbowed new training providers will find ways to capitalise on the CIPD’s weakness and tackle its monopoly – refreshing the market by introducing more healthy competition. Likewise, there are surely ways to undermine the CIPD’s accreditation and publishing monopolies.
‘In terms of thought leadership and dicussion, I am delighted to hear HR professionals say that the best discussions are now happening on my podcast This Isn’t Working.
‘I love hosting these conversations, and look forward to creating a dynamic community and events in the future, with input from employers who share my view that there is an opportunity to build something fresh and innovative here, where robust debate is not avoided, but actively encouraged.
‘If that’s you, please get in touch!
‘With the CIPD in decline, there is certainly space for new challengers to disrupt the market and work with employers to create a healthier, more productive HR industry. That’s something I’d love to see.’
AND FINALLY…
In the interests of balance, we were able to find one person who enjoyed Katie Neeeves’ webinar at the CIPD.
The following testimonial appears on Neeves’ website. It is the only public evidence we can find that shows that this disastrous training session ever happened…
This employee is still working at the CIPD.