Clear ideas. Concrete application.
For teams, classrooms and organizations that need to analyze cases and reframe conversations without confusing concepts or judging people. It clarifies , , gender, , and discrimination; situates , and “” (a Spanish term sometimes used to refer to anti-male , distinct from ) according to use, context and effect, without turning distinct categories into symmetrical opposites.
For whom
Adult individuals from teams, companies, administrations, educational centers, and social or community organizations. Organizations can contract it for their teams, communities, or participants.
What you will learn
- Differentiate , , gender, , and discrimination when analyzing everyday situations.
- Explain the purposes and uses of , , and “” (a Spanish term sometimes used to refer to anti-male , distinct from ) without confusing them or creating false equivalences.
- Identify unequal treatment or possible indicators and their limits in a non-legal case.
- Analyze a dialogue distinguishing conduct, argument, effect and legitimate disagreement, and propose respectful reformulations.
The syllabus, no mystery.
Each module combines concepts, a practice and a question to build your own criterion.
- as a principle of equal dignity, rights and treatment
- as a situated criterion in response to needs and barriers
- Sex, gender, roles and
- Classification of everyday situations
Classify case cards about access, treatment and distribution of opportunities and justify which concept best describes each one.
A question to ponderWhen can treating everyone the same way leave a barrier intact?
Your result: Classification table with a functional definition and a brief justification for each case.
Your final project.
Individual or group analysis of a fictitious dialogue about care or personnel selection. Includes an operational glossary, facts and available evidence, , unequal treatment or possible indication with its non-legal limits, legitimate disagreement, contextualized use of , and “” (a Spanish term sometimes used to refer to anti-male , distinct from ), and two reformulations. If carried out in a group, each member provides a brief, traceable individual justification.
This is how we work.
How we review what has been learned
Formative assessment and for the final case: conceptual accuracy (30%), evidence and limits of the analysis (25%), distinction without false equivalence (25%), and quality of the reformulations (20%). Responses may be given orally or in writing; ideological affinity and personal exposure are not evaluated.
Format and sessions
Five 2-hour sessions or equivalent blocks, in-person, live virtual or . Includes explanation, practice and assessment within the 10 hours; breaks excluded.
Before starting
No prior knowledge is required. Work is done with fictitious or cases and no one should reveal experiences, identity, vote, affiliation, or political position.
Proposed instructor profile
Proposed instructor profile: professionals with relevant experience in facilitation and work on gender and diversity. The specific profile, roles and availability will be confirmed before each edition, without attributing unverified qualifications.
Scope of the course
It is educational and conversational training, not legal advice nor therapy. It names inequalities without turning distinct categories into symmetrical opposites; it does not diagnose, does not require partisan adherence and does not replace protocols or specialized supports.
Reference sources
The cited entities are sources for consultation, not collaborators or endorsers of CRUSH.