Deadly Serious Question, I can apply for this if I self-identify as male, can't I?

mollythewonderpup

I might be wrong but I'm guessing you are seeing an opportunity to expose the unfairness of the self id movement by applying for the job whilst identifying as male, knowing that you won't get it. Thereby being able to show self id up for only benefitting males, not females in practice. If it is this, then I totally understand your motivation. It's so hard to be witnessing women's jobs, awards, medals and safety being lost to self identifying males and the opportunity to try to turn the tables is tempting. But like all the other posters, I agree that this is not the right place to do this, or even the best thing to do at all unless the organisation has made a big show of being pro self id.

I'm confused - why can they say "men only for this job because it could be dangerous for a woman" - but we can't say things like "women only in this refuge where they're escaping dangerous men"?

could PPs give some citation for the poor outcomes of perp programmes please?

Oh - maybe not as it mentions the Equality Act.

Confused now!

What GreenandCabbage said.

Ie you will be working with the men not the women - not that you have to be a man.

This strikes me as a useful example of the 2010 EA being used to ensure males should be able to benefit from female-free spaces too, if the need is shown to be there (and I can fully see why, in this case).

It's important to acknowledge this legislation works both ways.

Missing the point but they're asking for an awful lot for a £23, 000 salary

I read that as the programme is for males, nothing is mentioned about the sex of the applicant.

The salary seems ridiculously low for the job and the qualifications needed.

Also, I would hazard a guess that the perpetrators of domestic violence - with whom you would be working - would not take kindly to being counselled / told how to change their behaviour by a woman!!

Which, presumably, is why this post has to be filled by a male.

They are acknowledging the inherent misogyny in this group and that the only chance they have of getting through to them would be another male.

So if you did try to self-ID you'd be massively affecting the programme's effectiveness.

It's a badly written advert because of that rogue capital M, as TimeLady says, which suggests the word "Male" is part of the job title

It probably is part of the job title. They are looking for a male to work with males as the Male Programme Facilitator. Hence the quoting of the Equality Act. The only other explanation for quoting the Equality Act is because they are exclusively looking to recruit a female to work with males as the Male Programme Facilitator on the DV programme.
You surely can't believe that would be the case?

It's the charity sector - how come they can claim this exemption with no one throwing their toys out of the pram?

Because they’re excluding women, not men (rightly in this instance, IMO). The TRA only get upset when roles are reserved for women only.

Well being as the advert says they are looking for someone to work exclusively with men, they state that are looking for a male programme facilitator and they quote 'The Equality Act 2010, Schedule 9, Part 1, Paragraph 1 applies to this post'' , you would have to be deliberately pedantic or obtuse to think they will consider a female candidate / 'self-identified' male, or that the advert is in any way ambiguous. The advert is clear.

It's the charity sector - how come they can claim this exemption with no one throwing their toys out of the pram?

When I play that game of 'what would I do if I had £100 billion?' one of the top things is fund DV refuges for women. Women. Only women. No cocks in frocks.

I must admit, I read the advert assuming that either sex could apply but the programme was for men. It's a badly written advert because of that rogue capital M, as TimeLady says, which suggests the word "Male" is part of the job title.

It should read looking for a male Programme Facilitator, without the capitalisation. Sloppily worded.

And I feel that decision should be respected, given the circumstances.

It says The Equality Act 2010, Schedule 9, Part 1, Paragraph 1 applies to this post.

Good on them.

I hope this charity uses the Act when they need a Woman for a job.

I’m disappointed it pays so little. I’d have thought it needed someone with quite a lot of life experience as well as the academic requirements. Sometimes I feel very out of touch with the ‘real’ world (I didn’t go to uni & worked in the City for financial institutions where I was well paid).

From reading the advert it seems entirely appropriate that this is a role for male applicants only. I am pleased that they are making use of the exemption. I imagine transmen with GRCs would have to be considered on a case by case basis.

We need to support use of the exemption where it is appropriate, not challenge it.

Self-ID is not law in most places and hopefully never will be, as removing all gate keeping would leave the system open to abuse.

Where self-ID is the law I believe you still need to do a stat dec and submit it to a government department? Not sure.

I think there are cases where sex is relevant and wish Women’s shelters et al would take the same approach.

Important job. I don't think this is a role for the gender argument.

Given that job ads are costed on word count and that the majority of people still understand sex based needs in service provision I can completely understand the brevity of wording in the jobad. It's open to interpretation, yes - but the vast majority of jobseekers don't analyse jobads the way we do on here....

Yes - it's a job advert with an EA 2010 exemption.

They're looking for a male person.