https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
Sex is the protected characteristic under the Act, but that is not on your list.
2/13
Hi @WDCouncil @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk
The Equal Opportunities Form in your job application has 'gender' in a list of what appears to be the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.
cc @macca808 @SundayTimesScot
1/13
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
Sex is the protected characteristic under the Act, but that is not on your list.
2/13
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
4/13
https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF
'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.
5/13
There is a protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment', but the terms you use here are not used or defined in the Act.
https://t.co/2o53ufahzA
6/13
7/13
8/13
9/13
10/13
11/13
12/13
Please respond.
https://t.co/RJAWJ1vJ6s
13/13
More from sexnotgender.info
Hi @UHSFT @uhs_jobs @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk
The Equal opportunities section of your job application mentions the Equality Act 2010 four times and lists sex as a protected characteristic twice.
However...
1/11
However, you then ask for the 'gender' of the applicant with options:
Male
Female.
2/11
'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
3/11
Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology.
https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF
'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.
4/11
Asking about a personal characteristic such as 'gender' that is not a protected characteristic under the Act, may be in breach of the GDPR by processing personal - and potentially Special Category - data without a lawful basis.
5/11
The Equal opportunities section of your job application mentions the Equality Act 2010 four times and lists sex as a protected characteristic twice.
However...
1/11
However, you then ask for the 'gender' of the applicant with options:
Male
Female.
2/11
'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
3/11
Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology.
https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF
'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.
4/11
Asking about a personal characteristic such as 'gender' that is not a protected characteristic under the Act, may be in breach of the GDPR by processing personal - and potentially Special Category - data without a lawful basis.
5/11
Hi @SussexUni @adamtickell @profsaulbecker @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk
The Equal opportunities monitoring form in your job application asks for the 'gender' of the applicant with options:
Male
Female
Other.
https://t.co/DbKgiLN5yG
1/10
'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
2/10
Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology - 'other' is not a valid option.
https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF
'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.
3/10
Asking about a personal characteristic such as 'gender' that is not a protected characteristic under the Act, may be in breach of the GDPR by processing personal - and potentially Special Category - data without a lawful basis.
4/10
If you choose not to gather data on specific protected characteristics (such as sex), you cannot have the information required to ascertain whether or not you could be discriminating on protected characteristics in recruitment. This could be vital in an employment tribunal.
5/10
The Equal opportunities monitoring form in your job application asks for the 'gender' of the applicant with options:
Male
Female
Other.
https://t.co/DbKgiLN5yG
1/10
'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
2/10
Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology - 'other' is not a valid option.
https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF
'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.
3/10
Asking about a personal characteristic such as 'gender' that is not a protected characteristic under the Act, may be in breach of the GDPR by processing personal - and potentially Special Category - data without a lawful basis.
4/10
If you choose not to gather data on specific protected characteristics (such as sex), you cannot have the information required to ascertain whether or not you could be discriminating on protected characteristics in recruitment. This could be vital in an employment tribunal.
5/10
Hi @CotswoldOutdoor @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk
The Equal Opportunities Questions section of your job application asks for the 'gender' of the applicant with options:
Male
Female
Transgender
Transsexual
Non-Binary
continued...
1/11
...
Non-Binary
Genderfluid
Agender
Bigender
Polygender
Neutrois
Gender Apathetic
Gender not listed.
2/11
'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
3/11
Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology, but you don't ask for that.
https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF
'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.
4/11
All the other terms you use, apart from the term 'transsexual', are not protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and are not defined or used in the Act.
5/11
The Equal Opportunities Questions section of your job application asks for the 'gender' of the applicant with options:
Male
Female
Transgender
Transsexual
Non-Binary
continued...
1/11
...
Non-Binary
Genderfluid
Agender
Bigender
Polygender
Neutrois
Gender Apathetic
Gender not listed.
2/11
'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
3/11
Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology, but you don't ask for that.
https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF
'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.
4/11
All the other terms you use, apart from the term 'transsexual', are not protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and are not defined or used in the Act.
5/11
Hi @EdinburghNapier @ProfAndreaNolan @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk
The Equal Opportunities section in your job application asks for the 'gender' of the applicant, with options:
Female
Male
Unspecified.
cc @dr_ciaran @BBCWomansHour
1/9
'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
2/9
Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology, but you don't ask for that.
https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF
'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.
3/9
Asking about a personal characteristic such as 'gender' that is not a protected characteristic under the Act, may be in breach of the GDPR by processing personal - and potentially Special Category - data without a lawful basis.
4/9
If you choose to discriminate on characteristics (such as 'gender') that are not protected characteristics under the Act, you may inadvertently indirectly discriminate on protected grounds.
5/9
The Equal Opportunities section in your job application asks for the 'gender' of the applicant, with options:
Female
Male
Unspecified.
cc @dr_ciaran @BBCWomansHour
1/9
'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
2/9
Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology, but you don't ask for that.
https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF
'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.
3/9
Asking about a personal characteristic such as 'gender' that is not a protected characteristic under the Act, may be in breach of the GDPR by processing personal - and potentially Special Category - data without a lawful basis.
4/9
If you choose to discriminate on characteristics (such as 'gender') that are not protected characteristics under the Act, you may inadvertently indirectly discriminate on protected grounds.
5/9
Hi @SouthOxon @WhiteHorseDC @Alexa_Kantor @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk
The Equal Opportunities Monitoring section in your job applications has 'gender' in what appears to be a list of protected characteristics under Equality Act 2010.
1/13
'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
2/13
Sex is the protected characteristic under the Act, but that is not on your list.
'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.
3/13
You then ask for the 'gender' of the applicant with options:
Female
Male.
4/13
Again, 'gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
5/13
The Equal Opportunities Monitoring section in your job applications has 'gender' in what appears to be a list of protected characteristics under Equality Act 2010.
1/13
'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
2/13
Sex is the protected characteristic under the Act, but that is not on your list.
'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.
3/13
You then ask for the 'gender' of the applicant with options:
Female
Male.
4/13
Again, 'gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
5/13
More from Society
Two things can be true at once:
1. There is an issue with hostility some academics have faced on some issues
2. Another academic who himself uses threats of legal action to bully colleagues into silence is not a good faith champion of the free speech cause
I have kept quiet about Matthew's recent outpourings on here but as my estwhile co-author has now seen fit to portray me as an enabler of oppression I think I have a right to reply. So I will.
I consider Matthew to be a colleague and a friend, and we had a longstanding agreement not to engage in disputes on twitter. I disagree with much in the article @UOzkirimli wrote on his research in @openDemocracy but I strongly support his right to express such critical views
I therefore find it outrageous that Matthew saw fit to bully @openDemocracy with legal threats, seeking it seems to stifle criticism of his own work. Such behaviour is simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with an academic commitment to free speech.
I am not embroiling myself in the various other cases Matt lists because, unlike him, I think attention to the detail matters and I don't have time to research each of these cases in detail.
1. There is an issue with hostility some academics have faced on some issues
2. Another academic who himself uses threats of legal action to bully colleagues into silence is not a good faith champion of the free speech cause
How about Selina Todd, Kathleen Stock, Jo Phoenix, Rachel Ara, Sarah Honeychurch, Michele Moore, Nina Power, Joanna Williams, Jenny Murray, Julia Gasper ...
— Matt Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) February 17, 2021
Or is it only Eric you pop at?
Are they all making it up too Rob?
Are they "beyond parody"? https://t.co/drQssTD0OL
I have kept quiet about Matthew's recent outpourings on here but as my estwhile co-author has now seen fit to portray me as an enabler of oppression I think I have a right to reply. So I will.
I consider Matthew to be a colleague and a friend, and we had a longstanding agreement not to engage in disputes on twitter. I disagree with much in the article @UOzkirimli wrote on his research in @openDemocracy but I strongly support his right to express such critical views
I therefore find it outrageous that Matthew saw fit to bully @openDemocracy with legal threats, seeking it seems to stifle criticism of his own work. Such behaviour is simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with an academic commitment to free speech.
I am not embroiling myself in the various other cases Matt lists because, unlike him, I think attention to the detail matters and I don't have time to research each of these cases in detail.
You May Also Like
The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
The story doesn\u2019t say you were told not to... it says you did so without approval and they tried to obfuscate what you found. Is that true?
— Sarah Frier (@sarahfrier) November 15, 2018
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
