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

Well yes. People have different needs and fall into different groups. Some will have protection due to the group they’re in. Nothing to do with ‘precedent’. It was a red herring when TRAs used it as an argument too.

No. I was saying that when they are needed and used they are not ‘sexist’. It was suggested that these should be temporary measures, so I pointed out they are. Under the EA they are only legal where women are underrepresented.

As long as 'protection' does not end up meaning being a favoured or special priority......I think that is the crux of the issue.

If it was only women that had toilet provisions that were meant to specifically cater to their needs, and men didn't - then that would be negative discrimination with women being seen as being given special privileges and priorities.

Or if women had first priority on using a set of toilets, and men had to wait until all of the women had used them first before they could use them, that would also be a case of negative discrimination.

But what happens if women are perceived as being under-represented pretty much in all sectors and most of the time. Must representation always be 50% in all sectors? And why?

It rarely comes to a competition, and where it is, and one group loses to another, its down to the employers poor implementation of the policies or a lazy approach to RA that results in them simply taking tasks away from people who need the adjustment and giving them to staff who dont. This is not what the EA requires of them.
If a disabled person requires an adjustment, its up to the employer to make that adjustment in a way that doesn't cause detriment to others. If they can't do that, the adjustment is not reasonable and therefore need not be made.
As far as the first point goes, if we ever get to a point where we have more people requiring adjustments than not, then it's time for a rethink of the environment and systems we are asking people to operate in. Because if they're not working for the majority, they're not working.

I'm sure she could clarify her own post and I'm not sure what I've over personalised? Are you implying I've personally attacked her in my post? I'm confused why you've inserted yourself

I understand that those who don't require these protections feel slighted but it's not based in any reality. Men have always ignorantly thought woman were somehow privileged by getting a maternity leave, do we just bow down to this and remove pregnancy protections? We're all perfectly aware how people feel hard done by, but it's not th same as people who need accomodations actually being hard down by in their adjustments and protections are removed. If someone feels resentful that workspaces should be accessible to disabled people that's a them problem and actually sounds like the boogeyman of an EDI webinar would help them understand that they're not actually disadvantages just because others are being lifted to the same playing field as them.

There is nothing wrong with a discussion over maternity leave. The right to maternity leave in the UK has risen from 6 weeks to one year. There's plenty of room for a debate around how long maternity leave should be and how much of it should be paid and what that pay should be and who should pay it (the taxpayer or the employer). Fathers are now allowed to share the mother's maternity leave entitlement. A lengthy period of paid maternity leave isn't and in my view shouldn't be seen as a sacred right.

It would though be a rollback in women's maternity rights and it's important to frame it as such, it's increased over the decades due to women fighting for this. SMP is already a cost that employers can claim back.

A lengthy period of paid maternity leave isn't and in my view shouldn't be seen as a sacred right.
Can is so what your practical alternative is though where women wouldn't be at a disadvantage to their male colleagues or partners?

Preferential treatment is not a level playing field. The idea that some people are necessarily hindered by the very fact of their sex or their race or whatever group categeory they fit into, and must be elevated and given greater access to jobs or opportunities or benefits than other candidates or applicants is bound to create resentment. You can't keep telling people that this is due to their own 'privilege'.

I don't think anybody objects to disabled access, in terms of physical access and modifications - but they do expect a candidate or applicant to be equally as qualified as anyone else.

It no one is given an overall adjustments based solely on their sex or race, unless you want to list any specifics it's really not possible to debate these vague suggestions you're making. Can you give an example of what you're actually talking about? Because so far every specific protection from the EA anyone brings up it's "not that!" So what is it? For example based on your last statement where does the equality act state that under qualified disabled candidates should be given a job over a more qualified able bodied candidate and when/where has this happened? It's a pretty common piece of misinformation nowadays that EDI (or most posters state DEI because they're parroting a statement made about US policy) means that women or non-white or disabled people arr being given jobs they're not qualified for so I'm curious where the UK policy requires this and any examples you have.

but they do expect a candidate or applicant to be equally as qualified as anyone else.

'Positive discrimination' is not legal in the UK.

This is not down to the letter of the Equality Act but to the rampant misinterpretation. It comes from the insane obsession with targets, microagressions, claims of systemic racism without objective analysis.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/9621bf98-be67-4e5e-86a4-457cfdaa9cf0?shareToken=4bd506738f7ac67b95ae32974f447cde
The Nottingham triple killer carried out an earlier violent attack after being released by mental health professionals who had considered the “over-representation” of young black men in custody, a public inquiry has been told.
Mental health professionals had been “leaning towards” sectioning Calocane, who had been arrested for criminal damage earlier that day for attacking another neighbour’s door. However, he was released after “the team of professionals considered the research evidence that shows over-representation of young black males in detention”, the inquiry was told.

But if you frame it as 'positive action' it is:

3.1 Awareness of legal risks of using positive action
Using positive action to redress an imbalance for underrepresented groups may have the consequence of relatively worsening the position of other individuals or groups, so there is likely to be some risk of complaints and even legal action against the organisation taking the action. It is a good idea to get legal advice before deciding on a positive action programme based on a protected characteristic.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/positive-action-in-the-workplace-guidance-for-employers/positive-action-in-the-workplace

Even what you've linked states very clearly for you that even in cases of positive action the candidates need to be equally qualified

This is nothing to do with the EA though? Yes there was an instance where they had little history of him to assess his risk and they weighed up the over representation of black men in detention and he was managed in the community. He then went on to be sectioned (detained) 4 times and still this horrific attack took place. It's possible for it to still be relevant and true that black men are overrepresented in detention and that in some cases a wrong decision is made but this has nothing to do with the equality act so I'm confused why you're raising it?

Yet there will always be examples where organisations and bodies mis-use the act and stray into discrimination; and when 'positive action' is used a lot, people are inevitably going to question its use...whether it remains legal or not.

People will also question the necessity of the ideological aims behind the positive use of the act. Why, for example, must there always be a fixed percentage of women, for example, in any given role? Who says so, and why?

Who says so and why?

I think the key point is the Equality Act doesn't say so.

It seems pretty obvious to me tbh, this thread is example of people unintentionally oblivious to the issues different demographics face. Have you never worked in an all male team where people expect you to take the meeting notes for example? Or where all the male employees can do overtime or business deals at after work drinks but you're the only one that has to leave on time to pick up your kids?That sort of dynamic is rife when we don't have enough female employees. Likewise support and recognition for the health problems women face during menopause and how this may affect attendance has only been achieved by female employees fighting for this recognition. We also have industries massively historically dominated by men such as gynaecology and surgery where it patient wants to exercise their right to request same sex care it would help if we actually increased the number of women we're hiring so it's actually available. There's literally so many reasons but most simply so we have the best brains on the job which logically would be representative of all corners of society. It's interesting there's all these suspicions about competency when it comes to increasing % of female, black or disabled employees but no one suspected we may have jobs filled by under qualified slightly useless people when everyone was a straight white man (and yet I'm sure every woman here has worked with a man employed far beyond his intelligence 😁)

@Shortshriftandlethal did you have any examples still by the way? Cos I note you're still raising the issue of people possibly not being competent for the job without giving any actual examples

There will always be examples of murder. That doesn't mean laws against homicide are causing murders.

There are examples of people believing they can bring in positive discrimination measures like quotas/not serving drinks to privileged groups. Those examples pop up when they are successfully challenged under the Equality Act.

British law is not the same thing as Tumblr. Wanting to change UK law because you are angry at teenagers on Tumblr/an opinion piece in the guardian is not sensible.

This is the point. The Equality Act is just a document laying out basic principles. It depends on interpretations, guidance, real life application etc.
Just as it has taken the Supreme Court to define what sex is, and still people are trying to avoid that interpretation.
He who cotrols the interpretation controls the law.
The example I posted shows a professional's judgement being influenced by skin colour and statistical data on supposed discrimination.

No, I know, but for those that do have an issue with the concept of 'positive action' and women only short-lists and so on these questions are going to arise - because there is most definitely a sense and a perception that people are being discriminated against, and for, in the name of 'political correctness'.

The public sector can get away with it more, but not so the private sector.,

Exactly. The irony of this argument that straight white men are being discriminated against in favour of other groups (which is really odd to see on a feminist forum) is that the EA allows them to challenge any instance where they suspect this to see if they've been ddiscirminated against on the basis of their race or sex and a less qualified candidate recruited instead.

You can imagine someone might ask "why don't 50% of nurses/nursery workers have to be men"; or "why don't" 50% of construction workers have to be women?"