Sex discrimination and all the other unlawful discriminations to become lawful

[Tadpolesinponds]

...if Reform wins the next general election.
Politics latest: Reform would scrap Equality Act, says Braverman | Politics News | Sky News

I suppose with your first paragraph it really depends whether you agree with people to have the autonomy to choose freely if they want to have children or not? I assume you do (hopefully) but the way you're wording it is as though people have a duty to reproduce. Of course population decline is a stress for a country but as has been covered a million times in conversations about reform,we have enough immigration to the UK that actually there isn't a major issue with people choosing to have less or no children unless of course you also wish to stop or reduce immigration and then really those people should start being honest about why that is. I think some of what you say assuming most people do want to have a family is quite misinformed actually, many childree people by choice especially of the young generation can give you a list of real practical reasons why they don't want to have their own biological family. If you want to boost the population and number of people having children, it would be wise for a political party to address those issues rather than propose a punitive tax on not having children. If he meant to aim his displeasure at the birth rate at both men and women perhaps he should have aimed his comments at both rather than specifically calling out women and girls and lambasting them for either not having children or having them too late. I don't find when he had his own children immaterial at all, it's hypocritical when he's proposing such things.

You pretty much seem to be saying here that it doesn't matter what policies they suggest, or whether they are sensible, their reasons for having them are bad

I don't think I'm saying ? I hardly think it's a controversial opinion for a feminist to be opposed and wary about policies being proposed that the state should be interfering in women's reproductive choices particularly when people from the same political parties have been vocal about reducing our access to abortion. So actually in a way you may be right in your assumption in that I don't care what the specific policy is, our wombs are not their business and we don't owe it to the country to be reproducing if we don't want to. If that means the country will have to rely on immigration, so be it. Do you really not find people like Godwin not just implying but openly saying that basically women and girls should be having children as some sort of duty to the country dangerous?

Why do you think those pupils are doing the best? Is there initiatives in the school that are specifically offering more support to those from Asian or Arabic backgrounds? Do you think they are being let into university on lower standards due to EDI? In my experience, the children who succeed the most are those pushed by their parents who believe education will be a key to their child and therefore it's encouraged and pushed for them to revise and do well in school. I think a lot of the talk of white working class boys doing worse in school compared to people from other cultural backgrounds is disingenuous. We've yet to see any proper initiatives to improve educational outcomes for the working classes, and it's usually only highlighted as an issue when they're performing worse compared to those from an immigrant background, but really I think for those that aren't a first or second generation immigrant most British working class know that university isn't necessarily going to open doors for their children and we don't place th same value on education as those from other cultures. This has played out over generations with different waves of immigration where children have excelled in school and it's been highlighted that they are outperforming British working class kids, and once they acclimatise to the British class system and that education or university isn't going to magically open doors, the outcomes tend to even out with British children. I would prefer for politicians who see this and issue to actually improve the education system and make university more accessible for everyone especially those who can't afford to go into massive debt, but I doubt they will as they've never really valued that.

Yes, I think the children of these communities are very much pushed by their parents as they see and value education as a means of social mobility. It is the same situation woth grammar schools and with independent schools too - with a growing proportion of pupils in these types of schools also coming from these backgrounds.

I'm not sure that encouraging everyone into university is a good idea anymore. For a start there are just not enough graduate level/type jobs to go around. Many students, including doctors, simply cannot find suitable work upon graduating, and when everyone has a degree the degree itself becomes devalued. Also a lot of these sorts of degree entry level digital/admin type roles are very susceptible to being supplanted by AI.

You don't necessarily need a degree to get into a well paid job with prospects. Having a trade or a specific skill set can also be a route into worthwhile employmewnt, and one that does not incur huge student debts at the start of a working life. A focus on business creation,especially in manufacturing and other manual types of ocupation and accomplanying apprenticeships and training in those areas of skill or trade. But of course this is a whole economy solution that would require vision and determination to implement.....and it is difficult to see where that is going to come from at present.

I agree with a lot of what you say, especially around uni. I'd like it be more accessible for people financially but I also think there was a window of really pushing almost anyone to go to uni and they opened so many courses that were really just a cash grab and have only saddled people with debt and a passion project degree.

Just showing that there is a gap neither shows that there is a necessity for separate services, or even more services, nor that the service being offered in these cases actually meaningfully addresses the gap.

But organisations are using it that way, mainly because that is how American antiracism activists think about these things.

The other and really more shocking element is that it could be possible to "run out" of services for one racial or other group. Services will always be limited, but the idea that there are quotas for differernt groups and when they run out of the funding allocated only members of other groups will still have access to services is based on a profound form of racism that is deeply shocking to many people.

You would never say, gee, we have run out of all the money allocated for cervical cancer, but still have money for prostate cancer, so women, you will just have to stay home for now. Nor would it be ok if we flipped that.

I'm not sure that's the main issue though. I suspect the sense that it is not just preventing discrimination, but seemingly setting up a new privileged hierarchy of some over others, is more what people are pissed about.

The two examples I see people talk about a lot are variations of the this. One is kids in school with no special needs. Who seem to be completely at the mercy of the school accommodating kids who can access some kind of discimination claim (say for a learning disability.) And a similar thing at work where people feel those who can make a claim to belong to a protected group can access various accommodations that others could also benefit from, or which actually puts more work or stress on others.

I don't think most people want an unfair society, but they do think that somehow we have strayed away from fairness to creating groups that have special access to resources or accommodation in a way that is that is unfair.

I mean - all women shortlists by rights should be illegal. The only argument for them is as a temporary measure to try and redress a problem.

I think you could make a very good argument that if they were ever necessary, they aren't now, and it may have been better to use other means to increase the participation of women in government.

So would you also oppose the idea that a country would try to teach about the effects of having kids early, or how to use contraception effectivly, in order to help avoid the larger social problems that can cause?

The thing is, it's not interfering with people's autonomy to talk about any of those things. It's not a bad thing for young people to think about this stuff. And reproduction does have social consequences. Why shouldn't people be aware of that? Are you saying knowing this makes their choice less free?

There is some very strange purity thinking, or maybe it is almost romantic, around this idea that people have to make their choices to have kids or not in some kind of bubble, untouched by anything other than personal factors.

As far as immigration, there are all kinds of reasons that a very high levels of immigration is not a great solution. It's expensive, it is difficult for a society to integrate that many people successfully without an established and solid community in place, it can create social divisions, and then there are ethical questions about importing large numbers if people from other countries who have been the ones paying for all the social and economic capital required to raise a good citizen.

The only argument for them is as a temporary measure to try and redress a problem.

I mean - yea that’s exactly how they operate.

No of course I wouldn't, contraception education empowers people to choose if and when they have children. I can't imagine what in my post made you think I'd be against that? You seem to be conflating educating young people how to have safe sex and reproductive freedom with scaremongering young women into having children out of duty to the economy as being on an equal footing when they're really not.

There is some very strange purity thinking, or maybe it is almost romantic, around this idea that people have to make their choices to have kids or not in some kind of bubble, untouched by anything other than personal factors.

Again you're trying to merge two different issues an you're doing it with an agenda. Of course people's choices whether or not they reproduce is influenced by the world around them which is exactly what women are saying in response to being lectured about how they're letting the country down by not popping out children. I don't know why you're pretending you don't understand that women can want the government to provide better support so that those who are choosing not to have children when actually they would love to but can't afford to but also uphold the principal that having children is still a personal choice to not have them regardless of what support is in place to make it easier.

Being disturbed that women are being told they have a duty to birth British children by the same party that support reducing our access to abortion isn't purity thinking by any measure 🤨

This is a lot of words to express a misunderstanding of equity vs equality.

What's your alternative exactly? Should children with learning needs just not being offered support and lag behind? Should pregnant employees just not be able to access maternity rights because they're male colleagues aren't entitled to a maternity leave?

When a 'problem' goes from being temporary to permanent, perhaps it is time to reflect on what exactly the nature of 'the problem' is. Also can that which is being defined as 'a problem' be tackled or addressed in any other way?

I think you are overly personalising the discussion. I don't think Temepst Tost is suggesting the things you are accusing her of. I think she's just trying to take apart your points and test them out.

No, I think what is being examined is the feelings of resentment that arise when one self identified group is perceived to be in receipt of special privileges - which is what the concept of 'equity' suggests needs to happen. Telling other groups of people that this is just about "redressing historic inequalities" doesn't make the resentment or the issues that flow from that go away.

But the Equality Act very specifically isn't about setting up a privileged hierarchy. We know this definitively because For Women Scotland took a case to the Supreme Court and won on the grounds that one aspect of the EA (gender reassignment) could not be privileged over another group (sex) and that sex was biological sex not gender. If you want to talk about wider cultural trends/talking points then I think we can find some agreement. But the Equality Act itself isn't the problem in that case.

It also isn't really about making some groups more protected than others. Men can and have successfully claimed discrimination on the basis of sex for example. Likewise if you are unlawfully discriminated against for being white you are protected by the EA. I know there is a lot of talk in certain spaces about whether it's possible to be racist against a white person. Thats not an issue with the Act itself which is written in such a way that the race discriminated against doesn't matter. Workplaces are expected to make reasonable accommodation for disabled people and I think that's a good thing. But if you feel, in your workplace, their is an unfair burden on you as the able-bodied employee (for example if you find yourself being pressured to work unpaid overtime or lift dangerous loads to cover another worker) you can currently seek redress via existing employment legislation.

Removing workers rights isn't going to make life easier for the hypothetical put upon able-bodied bodied employees in your scenario. (Likewise, I wouldn't trust Reform to improve schooling or provide more funding to schools. I don't think they know much about how state schools work.) But that's going of topic from the EA. I also think there is an interesting contradiction between the anger at how many people are on disability/long term sickness benefits and the dislike of any legislation to make it easier for them to work or keep jobs. Eg if someone in a wheelchair isn't able to work because there are no ramps, and isn't allowed to "sponge of" the state, and can't WFH because that's bad too what should they do?

Have you considered that when/if the definition of 'special needs' changes and the numbers of people said to be having such special needs increases, often quite dramtically - how do you balance these needs against the types of needs that other groups or individuals may have?

And likewise, should an employee with childcare responsibilities take precedent over someone who has responsibilities towards a disabled spouse or elderly parent; or precedent over someone who has a serious health condition that requires regular medical appointments and so on?

Could you expand on that. I don’t really understand your point in relation to AWS.

Isn’t this the TRA argument? Essentially “should a biological woman take precedent over a transwoman?”

Define take precedence

An employer can (and should legally) allow a pregnant employee time of work to attend maternity appointments. What it can't do is tell Bob, who normally works 9-5 that he needs to work till 9-7 extra time unpaid to cover his pregnant co-workers shifts. (Unless of course there is already a clause in Bob's contract saying he should be available till 7 if needed). The rights of his pregnant co-worker aren't impinging on Bob's existing rights (in the law, individual employers might be twats).

It is true that maybe Bob feels resentment that his co-worker gets time of to attend appointments but he doesn't get an equivalent number of hours of to do the things he needs to do because they aren't covered. But Bob hasn't had anything taken from him in that case. Besides which, if Bob was made to climb a ladder at work without safety gear and fell of, or if he was hit by a runaway tram on the way home he might well be glad of employment law that stops his employer from sacking him.

In my experience, in the real world, in most decent workplaces people try to support each other anyway. So I will gladly cover for my colleague if their son is sick and needs picking up halfway through the day. Because I know if my mum had a fall they would do the same. I don't know that many people who actually sit around bitching about how their co-worker got time of for BOTH parents funerals this year and it's not fair on people whose parents are still alive andso don't get to have compassionate leave. Which is the sort of resentment fueled situation you describe.

Legally, though, sex is defined by biology not by 'gender identity'. A transwoman is male, though those with a GRC do have other, specific protections against negative discrimination. Sex based protections are sex based. As long as everyone has a facility( or a toilet ) that meet their needs then nobody is disciminated against.

Under the Equality Act.
Which Reform want to scrap.
And some people are saying that's OK because "all this Equality has gone to far...."

You seemed to be suggesting that the use of women only short-lists was still needed? If that is what you meant, then doesn't it suggest that the problem you are trying to rectify ( not enough women in whatever role or function) is a long standing or permanent one, rather than a temporary one?

And if this 'problem' is a long standing or permanent one ( necessitating the ongoing use of women only short-lists) wouldn't it make sense to further reflect on why this is a problem that needs rectifying and /or maybe take a different approach towards it. Maybe it is only 'a problem' if you define it as one?

I'm not in agreement with scrapping the Equality Act myself. You cannot do that - without unintended consequences -unless you have something properly considered to substitute or replace it with.

I think most potential Reform voters don't really understand the reach and depth of the act......but are upset about the bits of it which are perceived to be prejudicial and offering special status and privileges to some but not others. And this does need to be addressed.

(I don't think single sex toilets/categories are a special privilege....they are considered common sense.....even by Reform voters)

And likewise, should an employee with childcare responsibilities take precedent over someone who has responsibilities towards a disabled spouse or elderly parent; or precedent over someone who has a serious health condition that requires regular medical appointments and so on?

'Parent' is not a protected characteristic, so provision made for parents isn't part of the Equality Act.

Disability is a protected characteristic, so it is possible that somebody who was prevented from attending medical appointments would have a claim against their employer.

It seems to me sadly that we've moved away from people just being decent to each other, and there being a reasonable expectation of mutual accommodation and respect. To a point where a 'protected characteristic' is used as a stick to beat people with and some kind of competition of top trumps.

Employers should of course be expected to treat ALL their employees decently, decent salary, reasonable accommodations. Not only the ones that fit into certain boxes.

I don't think the EA has worked as intended, and some pretty unpleasant people seem to have weaponised it in a way totally incompatible with it's original intent. And there has been a lot of public money wasted.

I think replacing it with stronger employment and service provider laws might be better. It would be nice if the conversation was about that.