Male period dignity officer sacked so whole idea scrapped...

[Chevyimpala67]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-62807683

Why?
Why not just give the job to - oh I don't know - a woman???

Why scrap it totally?

If a man can't have the job no one can?

Ffs.

You claimed earlier that a poster was "ignoring evidence".

Then you repeatedly make completely unverifiable claims and try to claim that as evidence.

Not a very convincing way to go about things.

So because he’s male, and doesn’t bleed, therefore not capable?

Imagine creating a job (African American services) solely for a white person, then removing the role altogether because African Americans, rightly, complained that it was set up only so a privileged white person can get it.

Now do you get it?

A male has no business even doing that job. That should be taken as read by any person with room temperature IQ. It was a fake job anyway, only created for him, no women were even interviewed FOI exposes from people digging have showed. The fact they spitefully removed the role altogether than ever let an actual woman have it shows this misogynistic 'role' was created deliberately just for him.

Yes.

No reason why they couldn't say "we tried employing a man, but that turned out to be an unsatisfactory option so future appointments will be female."

That is a horrible thing to say @Discovereads. I didn't see your post when I wrote my last one. What a horrible thing for a man to say to another man.

I didn't follow 'only one hashtag' though - I'm saying that's the majority of the 'criticism' I saw levelled against the bloke.

Perhaps the Working Group will think again before they hire people through a dodgy recruitment process for a job which was bound to attract controversy.

Constructive dismissal, forced out by abuse - the lawyers must be lining up…….

if they were really convinced this was a needed role and he was the right person for the job they wouldnt have scrapped the job would they?

I don’t think that is true. Scrapping the role meant that they avoided all kinds of controversy and discussion re: recruitment processes and male vs female vs trans appointment.

I’m aware that my construction of ‘male vs female vs trans’ is contentious. I firmly believe that trans women are biologically male and trans men are biologically female, just trying to make a distinction between someone who is trans being appointed vs someone who is not trans being appointed.

I don't think that would sadisfy the legislation as written. They have a PR problem with that candidate's career history and sex. (Plus being accused of a job for the boy selection process.) But future male candidate's could take an action as the initial role was initially "open" to an applicant of either sex.

One way around this is to remove the role redesign it, and give it a new title.

Well, I guess the decision to scrap the role itself (and not just for the male incumbent to quietly resign) just proves that the appointment was cronyism - Tayside was never really serious about the importance of this post. It was all about creating a role for a certain person.

Yes I thought there was a bit of a cross post going on. Sadly it’s easier psychologically make threats online than in public directly towards a person. People tend to think it’s all pretend and has no consequences/harmless when it’s anything but. That’s why so many female leaders get death and rape threats all the time on SM. Studies have shown that online is sexist in that women clearly are targeted more often than men for abuse and threats.

I agree the Working Group completely fucked up the recruitment process and the PR of the job. I do think a man could do it after reading the specific duties of the post- which don’t add up to how the media reported the post. Part of me thinks the media had a vested click bait financial interest in mis-representing the role as a period guru/therapist type job when it is anything but. Stoking the fires of controversy increases their site footfall and thus their cash revenues.

I do think a man could do it after reading the specific duties of the post- which don’t add up to how the media reported the post. Part of me thinks the media had a vested click bait financial interest in mis-representing the role as a period guru/therapist type job when it is anything but.

I’d agree there was an apparent mismatch between the published job spec, and the role as Grant described it in interviews. The cause of the discrepancy could have had it’s root in the poor recruiting practice - if indeed it was a job he was parachuted into then maybe they slung an old job spec in there just to keep the HR systems happy. Or Grant could have been overstepping in his interviews. Either way I don’t think this discrepancy is due to the media. They reported what Grant said, and people are taking him at his word on what the job involved.

Job descriptions don't often list every single thing. It is very clear that from the photos of him speaking with preteen and teenage girls with products in front of them, to his own admission that he intended to speak more with preteen girls that his job involved being a semi therapist. That is very, very clear. Denying this fact isn't helping anyone. His job involved meeting with preteen and teenage girls. This is a fact, and one he himself intended to build upon. That is why it simply was not appropriate for a man to do. I could, at a pinch, buy a medically qualified man promoting products to women in the workplace - who have had their periods for years. Not, however, to vulnerable preteen and teen girls just starting out, who will naturally seek the comfort and guidance of a trusted female teacher or nurse, not a strange male. The media reported on what the selectively worded job description didn't reveal, and the receipts of the photos back them up. Thank goodness for the media, for the FOI and for some digging by smart Mumsnetters.

Where in law does it say that you can't start applying the single sex exemptions where you didn't before? So long as you can demonstrate a need of course.

www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-62826983.amp

jfc

Good for him and I hope he wins.

Irrespective of whether people think he was a good fit, you simply cannot bow to public pressure like this and renege on a contract of employment. The management should've thought more about the role in the first place. Shambolic is being too kind.

Sham Bollock more like.

The whole idea was a product of political correctness which is pushed by a small number of people in our society who think themselves as ‘progressive’ but are in actual fact ridiculous to anyone with a brain.

Genius.

How was he a 'good fit'?

He has no experience in this sector.

His hiring was defective.

We will never know if there was a better candidate of either sex. Throwing the baby out with the bath water is ludicrous!

I'm not saying whether he was or wasn't. I said 'irrespective of' what people think. Big difference.

My opinion is that it's not his fault for wanting the job but the management made a huge cock up with the recruitment. They now need to pay for their incompetence and think he should be compensated accordingly.

As I see it it wasn't that he wanted the job - it may have been constructed specifically for him for all I know. His mentor has track record for employing him across his area of expertise.

I can't see that he could have been any kind o of fit. And that is why public scrutiny is vital - which we seem to agree on.

But the bottom line is that he has been complicit in, benefitted from a stupidity. That he now wants to sue those who committed that stupidity, including his mentor/mate perhaps, it just seems like more of the same self absorbed, lack of reflection, I want, I want isms we see so much of!