Reform of EA2010

I mean that whole post is bizarre.

How old are you anally?

Over 80?

I cannot fathom what your sector could be. Would like to know as it sounds well. Very very strange!

'When a male co-worker tells a female co-worker she belongs in the kitchen, is that sexiest and sex discrimination?'

In my 30 years experience I have never heard that. Maybe when a group of people are joking around about shit from the old days?
I mean sure someone says it somewhere. But. To think that's a common standard thing is just really very peculiar.

'The same male co-worker tells male co-workers that they belong in the kitchen'

And I've never heard this either. The only reason I can think it would be said is to put down a gay man in the 70s.

'or they should earn the household income, does the discrimination stop as he was being sexist to everyone so treated everyone equally, hence no discrimination.'

I have also never heard anyone say to a man at work he should earn the household income.
I mean. What?
Your examples are so far removed from reality that it makes them hard to take seriously tbh.

In the end you're trying to prove I think that sexism against women at work is... Not an issue or applies to men as well. By using such terrible examples I'm actually quite embarrassed for you.

I've been working for 30 years and have never heard a man say to get back in the kitchen. I mean I don't know what your experiences are that you have heard that.

I'd be really interested in what sector/ when etc.

I mean it's such a cliche! Blokes have way better things to say and do and have for years.

This is your actual current experience of sexist things at work??!!!

Have to disagree oldcrone.

That's clearly 'banter' and if you don't react in the correct way ie smile/ laugh etc. Then it's obvious you have no sense of humour and possibly hate men.

When a male co-worker tells a female co-worker she belongs in the kitchen, is that sexiest and sex discrimination?

I think that would be classed as harassment.

Ah, the old chestnut of a sexist man telling women and other men they belong in the kitchen, a scenario we've all seen play out zeroes of times...

Likewise I think we need to shift the language used in discrimination discussions. We used to say suffered ‘wrongful discrimination” or “unfair discrimination”. Now that has become just ‘discrimination” as if all discrimination is wrong. Clearly this is not the case.

When a male co-worker tells a female co-worker she belongs in the kitchen, is that sexiest and sex discrimination? The same male co-worker tells male co-workers that they belong in the kitchen or they should earn the household income, does the discrimination stop as he was being sexist to everyone so treated everyone equally, hence no discrimination.

I support a narrow, carefully written amendment to require single sex provision in certain circumstances. I support the repeal of the GRA. I am very cautious about going beyond that.

Agree Floral

It is fact and rational thought that need protecting and enforcing, not beliefs which could be rational or not.

Likewise I think we need to shift the language used in discrimination discussions. We used to say suffered ‘wrongful discrimination” or “unfair discrimination”. Now that has become just ‘discrimination” as if all discrimination is wrong. Clearly this is not the case.

What we need to get to is a robust wisdom so that when we discriminate, differentiate etc, it needs to be logical, scientific, rational, factual, proportionate, defensible.

The paper refers to a distinction between hate speech and points of contention.

I'm not sure if some people have actually read the paper.

Gottalife

Also for people who hate lesbians, gay, women and many others. Stupid idea. It's a licence for bigotry.

Would any beliefs that are founded in hate not be considered as "extreme beliefs" though? Same for racism. So they wouldn't be covered, would they?

Hate speech laws have been around for a while now, in different places with somewhat different approaches. Is there any evidence that they have reduced hate, or hate crime, or hate speech?

You can also ask the question, what counts for racism or homophobia. The fact that it's seen as clearly a line that you can draw, no questions asked, is an illustration of the problem.

Because saying, oh, well, we can't stand for those things has become just as much a way to suppress public discussion of important questions as gender ideology has.

Lots of people who don't support CRT, BLM, "taking the knee" or do support certain political parties are now being branded as racists. I've seen people condemned as racists for reading Thomas Sowell, who isn't my cup of tea but it's a bit crazy on the face of it to call him a racist writer. I've seen gay people who don't think same sex marriage is a rights issue, or don't believe in surrogacy, or are conservative Catholics, called homophobic. I've known a man from the back woods trying to make a complaint to the town authorities told he was using the wrong words for aboriginal people, when he was using the same language all his aboriginal neighbours used. Many of these people have well thought out reasons for their views that have nothing to do with hatred of said group. They have a difference of opinion.

People confuse having a different set of ideas or experiences around a question as being some kind of hatred or deep ignorance, very much as they do with gender ideology.

The belief that anyone who doesn't agree with you is someone you can name call and dismiss and should be silenced and repressed is not a particularly mature one either.

Agreed. Particularly if such people then assume the right to classify disagreement as hate speech. I've no idea how anyone thinks that can lead to a functioning social or political system nor fail to observe that these are historically the preconditions for absolutism and authoritarianism.

The belief that anyone who doesn't agree with you is someone you can name call and dismiss and should be silenced and repressed is not a particularly mature one either.

You're making a complex issue into a very black and white one, which does not work. And ends up misrepresenting the situation in an attempt to make women give up their rights to benefit males.

Protecting hate speech will not end well, every sexist, racist, homophobe will use it, who will be worse off?

If you're taking away 'destroy the equality act' then you are not understanding what is being said here.

The whole 'women shut up and put up, because otherwise you'll make things worse for everyone' thing comes out a lot in an attempt to make women stop requiring equality, and is the worst kind of sexism really.

What happens if your political views are at odds with the protected characteristics of sexual orientation, or race?

Where I'm from we call them homophobes and racists.
Gc trying to destroy the equality act, i can totally see that happening, making the world a worse place.

Just to add that I see this authoritarian 'you can't say that' as a reflection or extension of the idea of safe spaces, where everyone and everything that could upset someone has to be silences and suppressed.

Better by far that we grow up and face the reality — that there are people who are misogynist, racist, homophobic and inclined to voices opinions we don't agree with — and learn ways of living with that. Expose the racism, allow sunlight in, change the racist individual's mind. We GC women know what it's like to be silenced. It's not a solution. It just makes us stronger.

What you can legislate against is the use of homophobia or racism to harass or harm or hold back others, and that's why we have hate speech legislation and the EA2010 which protects certain characteristics.

I'm a lifelong Labour voter, someone who's supported civil liberties, and I'm increasingly horrified by the authoritarian direction we're going in. I support freedom of speech, even if I detest what people say.

And the naive and eager "oh we'll get our GC beliefs protected"

It feels early for the reminder of the conventional, "Women, be quiet because your protected characteristic should defer to all others in all circumstances" plus the implicit false evaluation of the sophistication of some of the posters on FWR.

Oh and strong reminders that there are nine characteristics not just one; that those characteristics are not optional or replaceable with ones you happen to like better; an idiots guide to how to do an Equality Impact Assessment (remembering all nine characteristics required by law); and that no one characteristic is more important than and gets to trump any other. And accountability when this is not done properly.

I support a narrow, carefully written amendment to require single sex provision in certain circumstances. I support the repeal of the GRA. I am very cautious about going beyond that.

Same for me too.