Driving License Equality Course Sparks Outrage Over Cost and Ideology

The DGT adds an equality course to the license process

Forum participants assume a mandatory equality course has been inserted into the procedure for obtaining or renewing a driving license. According to the controversy, the Directorate General of Traffic (DGT) requires anyone taking the exam for the first time or extending their permit validity to undergo specific training on equality. It is not the medical check, fee, or theory exam. It is an added module, and many drivers view it as an ideological toll rather than a road safety improvement.

What is the mandatory equality course for the license?

The description refers to training on equality and gender perspective integrated into road safety education. It does not replace anything; it is added. The scenario painted by critics includes an instructor described sarcastically as the professor with a master’s in gender studies who opens the session warning that no one wants to be there. The classic course passed by exhaustion, from which no one leaves knowing more than when they entered.

The cost is where the issue becomes truly economic. No one puts a fixed figure on the table, but it is assumed that someone will charge. The dominant suspicion is that it will not be free and will end up in the hands of accredited companies that already profit from training courses, turning renewal into a new counter with a fee.

The scam: who pays and who collects

Here, anger shifts from cultural to accounting. The most repeated reading is that behind every mandatory training requirement lies a structure of contractors, and the driver pays twice: as a taxpayer and as a user. The breakdown circulating about the money flow — fee, course, accreditation of the driving school or road safety training company — is more revealing than any official statement.

There is a second layer. If driving schools are not all accredited to teach it, the business shifts to external operators. This leaves someone renewing a permit they already had in a classroom with strangers, without a prior exam and with the feeling of funding an ideological fee. The process has been described as another scam to pay for, and the phrase summarizes the mood quite well.

Indoctrination: the accusation running through the debate

The bulk of the criticism does not dispute equality as a principle, but the chosen path. It is argued that gender construct theories inspiring these contents lack scientific backing, and existing ones point in the opposite direction. Hence the next step: without evidence, the training does not correct any measurable problem, it installs a narrative.

This thesis leads to two scenarios. One cautious: the course will be a rant that is endured and forgotten. Another less kind: the first step of a social credit system where mandatory training becomes a condition for exercising basic rights, and those who do not pass it are degraded to second-class citizens. The comparison with other mandatory exams appears several times, not as a metaphor.

The political front: VOX, abstention, and the vote that doesn’t count

No party escapes. Those who voted for the formation representing them against these measures claim the right to complain; those who abstained are reproached for giving away the seat to those who legislate. And the underlying suspicion emerges: that the party presenting itself as an antagonist is also part of the system it claims to combat, with funders and pending favors ultimately paid from power.

Another block responds with the inverse argument. The complaint is useless because voting legitimizes the deception, and abstention is not cowardice but calculation. As a backdrop, the idea that the issue serves for public discussion to drift into the joke about who drives better and forget the real cost.

Performance behind the wheel: the terrain where the debate degrades

A part of the interventions drifts into stereotypes about the different performance of men and women behind the wheel, with anecdotes of impossible parking and reckless maneuvers attributed to the other sens. These are generalizations that do not withstand any serious statistics, and some reject them outright, precisely because they are the bait that allows diverting the conversation into terrain where the administration always wins.

There is the trap being pointed out: turning a complaint about the cost and utility of a course into a fight over stereotypes, which the measure’s promoter can later use to justify that the training is more necessary than it seems. The maneuver, they say, is old and works.

With so many open fronts, the striking thing is the uniformity of rejection: almost no one has read the syllabus, almost no one knows the cost, and almost all have already decided they will not do so. One of the most repeated messages summarizes the stance: to wait for them sitting down. And while the process continues, the only figure launched in the debate — the 95% of drivers outside the city who are men, according to one participant — serves for the usual: opening another debate that was not the one that mattered.