FB ads Discrimination Policy

[ZigZagZombie]

I work online - specifically serving women (as we know them). I've just received this from FB - "repeat after me".

Life should go on "as we know it" but the interpretation of this could be quite bendy if forced by someone with an agenda.

If for example you wanted to employ a woman to work in your women's shelter - you might select sex as woman, but also exclude anyone who is a freemason or went to Magdalene pre-85 type thing.

By doing that you do of course target the - or rather UN-target the individuals you do not want to work for you - but technically it breaks the gender-discrimination rules or whatfuckingever.

So now not only do I need to be seen to support this delusion to be on the "right side of history", but I also need to pay for the fucking madness - i.e., spend my hard-earned £££ so the stunning and brave (who I won't serve anyway) won't feel marginalised.

I don't think this is really about transpeople and on the whole, I think it's a good thing.

Very few jobs can legally discriminate in hiring on the basis of protected criteria. Yet many companies have been using FB's targetting to exclude people on the basis of sex and gender, age and ethnicity. Even when companies didn't expressly use relatively direct categories like gender or age they could get around it by using other categories that were dominated by one sex/age group/ethnicity/etc. They were sued by the ACLU in the US for allowing this as it has been largely to the detriment of biological women, older workers and ethnic minorities.

For the most part, this is very good news.

Yes, this a good thing and long overdue.

When it is exceptionally necessary to restrict, it should be on the basis of justified need.

If you cannot advertise a job without breaking the law, then the job should not be advertised. If you think that's wrong you campaiging eg with churches, when it became apparent that they couid not require employees to be of the faith? A solution was found, which was faith couid be specified, but only when it could be justified (eg the vicar herself a handful of key lay posts).

Even if you were not part of creating that solution, it is the only one around. If you want to overturn it, what wouid you replace it with?

This is a much needed change. There is substantial evidence of bias in jobs ad targeting at the root of this.

For example, the higher up the pay scale, the more likely the job ad was to be set to show to men only. The figures are astonishing and the policies in place provide some pushback to discourage biased targeting and stop ads from running.

If you’re actually worried about it, maybe you don’t know that you can always request manual review if an ad is flagged as a policy breaker and argue your case.

Find something else to shoehorn into the trans discussion, this isn’t the fucking madness you are looking for.