HSBC advert: gender should never be a barrier to opportunity

Link from here hsbc.taleo.net/careersection/external/joblist.ftl#

Anyone seen HSBC's equality statement on UK job adverts?

So many things they don't discriminate against (which can only be positive). Though some interesting omissions from the list...

I see some signs our legislators (some MPs, some peers) are waking up to the need for clarity in language and referring to sex.

It's unfortunate that 'gender' as straightforward alternative to 'sex' has been broken. A phrase such as 'gender based violence' doesn't translate well to 'sex based violence as that sounds more like sexual violence than violence committed predominantly by one sex on the other. Similarly with the 'gender pay gap'.

It's more gaslighting really isn't it.

A campaign "Gender identity should never be a barrier to opportunity" yes, great, no problems here. Of course it shouldn't.

What they've done is make it really vague, knowing most people conflate gender/sex.

They're basically pretending they're trying to improve sex based oppression but they're not.

They're trying to disguise a move to actively increase sex based oppression- by pretending it doesn't exist or matter, in a costume that looks to many like they're working to reduce it.

Is what you are saying that first, we moved away from man and woman being descriptors of sex and towards them being descriptors of gender, but that this advert seems to be moving away from man and woman as gender classes being important and towards cis and trans being the most important dividing line?

The day I take any organisation seriously on caring about trans people is the day I see them admitting that the biggest threat globally to transwomen is the sex industry. But they can't because they've been sold a thought package that includes the promotion of sex work as well as TWAW. Almost as if the whole thing has fuck all to do with transexuals and rather a lot to do with keeping women down.

We need to keep fighting against this.

We do. It's deeply embedded, though. For instance, I'm watching a work webcast about Anti-Bullying Week at the very moment. The Head of EDI had a slide that listed "Sex" as a protected characteristic. However, later on in his presentation he said "Gender" instead.

I've thought this for a while.

It started with the Stonewall-led misquoting of the equality act, with 'sex' being replaced by 'gender' and 'gender reassignment' by 'gender identity'. So instead of two distinct and obviously different protected characteristics (sex and gender reassignment) we had, two that appeared to be the same, or very similar (gender and gender identity).

The end game seemed to me to be to replace the two current protected characteristics with 'gender' or 'gender identity', removing sex altogether and also removing any suggestion that changing 'gender' should involve any physical changes to the body, as is implied by the term 'gender reassignment'.

We need to keep fighting against this.

It's sneakily effective isn't it? "There's a big problem of gender based violence" refers to violence against women and girls but presented in a way so as to be understood to be violence against certain people because of their gender identities. Which is possibly a very rare occurrence. Talk about appropriation.

I'm now also side-eyeing the euphemism "gender based violence," which is becoming increasingly popular in Scotland as a replacement for "violence against women and girls."

Have I gone full tin-foil hat here, or is this worth taking notice of?

Worth attention.

I wonder what's new? Pipps Bunce is already proof that banks can be very accepting to men of both genders.

It might be easier if we just did away with titles. I've always been puzzled that they are often a required field and never satisfied with any reason given for that requirement.