Female
Male.
'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
The term 'legal gender' is not used in the Act or defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
2/16
Hi @NewportCouncil @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk
The Equal Opportunities Monitoring in your job application asks for the 'gender' of the applicant and says "Please select either male or female based on your legal gender"...
1/16
Female
Male.
'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
The term 'legal gender' is not used in the Act or defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
2/16
https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF
'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.
3/16
Female
Male.
4/16
The term 'legal gender' is not used in the Act or defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
5/16
6/16
7/16
8/16
https://t.co/2o53ufahzA
9/16
10/16
11/16
12/16
13/16
14/16
15/16
Please respond.
https://t.co/RJAWJ1vJ6s
16/16
More from sexnotgender.info
Hi @chelwestft @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk
The Equal opportunities section in your job application mentions the Equality Act 2010 four times and correctly lists sex as a protected characteristic. 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 and there is no way to self-describe one's sex.
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 in your job application mentions the Equality Act 2010 four times and correctly lists sex as a protected characteristic. 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 and there is no way to self-describe one's sex.
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 @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 @bmj_latest @bmj_company @trishgreenhalgh @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk
The EEO section of your job application has 'gender' in what appears to be a list of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.
1/11
'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
2/11
Sex is the protected characteristic under the Act, but that is not on your list.
'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.
3/11
You then ask for the 'gender' of the applicant with options:
Male
Female.
4/11
'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
5/11
The EEO section of your job application has 'gender' in what appears to be a list of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.
1/11
'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
2/11
Sex is the protected characteristic under the Act, but that is not on your list.
'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.
3/11
You then ask for the 'gender' of the applicant with options:
Male
Female.
4/11
'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
5/11
Hi @uwebristol @vcuwe @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk
The Equality &Diversity Monitoring section of yr job application has 'gender' & 'gender identity' in what appears to be a list of protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010
1/16
'Gender' and 'gender identity' are not protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and are not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
2/16
Sex is the protected characteristic under the Act, but that is not on your list.
3/16
You then ask for the 'gender' of the application, saying, "This is your legal Gender" with options:
Female
Male
Unspecified.
4/16
'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act. It is not clear what you mean by 'legal gender'.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
5/16
The Equality &Diversity Monitoring section of yr job application has 'gender' & 'gender identity' in what appears to be a list of protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010
1/16
'Gender' and 'gender identity' are not protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and are not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
2/16
Sex is the protected characteristic under the Act, but that is not on your list.
3/16
You then ask for the 'gender' of the application, saying, "This is your legal Gender" with options:
Female
Male
Unspecified.
4/16
'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act. It is not clear what you mean by 'legal gender'.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
5/16
Hi @EdinburghUni @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk
The DIVERSITY INFORMATION section in yr job application mentions 'legal equality duties'. You then ask "What is your gender identity?" with options
Female
Male
Non-binary
Not-listed
Other
1/13
'Gender identity' 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 and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology - 'non-binary' and 'other' are not valid options.
https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF
'Gender identity' is not a synonym for sex.
3/13
You then ask "Does your gender identity match your sex registered at birth?"
4/13
Again, 'gender identity' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
5/13
The DIVERSITY INFORMATION section in yr job application mentions 'legal equality duties'. You then ask "What is your gender identity?" with options
Female
Male
Non-binary
Not-listed
Other
1/13
'Gender identity' 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 and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology - 'non-binary' and 'other' are not valid options.
https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF
'Gender identity' is not a synonym for sex.
3/13
You then ask "Does your gender identity match your sex registered at birth?"
4/13
Again, 'gender identity' 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
Tomorrow, January 6th, MAGA chuds, Proud Boys, and white supremacists are planned to descend on Washington D.C. to contest the election. Among them will be NSC-131, a New England based neo-Nazi organization. Let's welcome them by saying hi to one of their members, Eddie Stuart!
Edward Stuart, from Chester, New Hampshire, has been a member of Nationalist Social Club (NSC) since the very beginning and is a staple participant in their actions. He is known in NSC chats as "Carl Jung" and is well connected in the New England Nazi scene.
2/
NSC-131 is a neo-Nazi group that was started in Massachusetts in early 2020 by Chris Hood. You can learn more about NSC and it's members in these threads:
Eddie describes his ideology as "Esoteric Hitlerism" which is an occult form of Nazism that literally worships Adolf Hitler as a god, or, specifically, as an incarnation of the Hindu God Vishnu. Here is Ed holding the RigVeda with some of his occult Nazi pals. Interesting Ed!
4/
Much of this ideological insight was gained from Eddie's Twitter, where he originally used his "Carl Jung" persona and reposts explicit neo-fascist content and racist memes. In one edited picture, Eddie can be seen at an NSC event in late June 2020 holding a Nazi Sonnenrad flag
5
Edward Stuart, from Chester, New Hampshire, has been a member of Nationalist Social Club (NSC) since the very beginning and is a staple participant in their actions. He is known in NSC chats as "Carl Jung" and is well connected in the New England Nazi scene.
2/
NSC-131 is a neo-Nazi group that was started in Massachusetts in early 2020 by Chris Hood. You can learn more about NSC and it's members in these threads:
1/ Let\u2019s talk about a III%er turned Proud Boy turned Resist Marxism turned Patriot Front turned The Base affiliate.
— AntiFash Gordon (@AntiFashGordon) April 10, 2020
He now runs a new crew, the National Socialist Club, based on football hooliganism.\u2070\u2070
Some of you already know him.\u2070\u2070
His name is Chris Hood, of Boston, MA. pic.twitter.com/nXAxWugHcu
Eddie describes his ideology as "Esoteric Hitlerism" which is an occult form of Nazism that literally worships Adolf Hitler as a god, or, specifically, as an incarnation of the Hindu God Vishnu. Here is Ed holding the RigVeda with some of his occult Nazi pals. Interesting Ed!
4/
Much of this ideological insight was gained from Eddie's Twitter, where he originally used his "Carl Jung" persona and reposts explicit neo-fascist content and racist memes. In one edited picture, Eddie can be seen at an NSC event in late June 2020 holding a Nazi Sonnenrad flag
5
This is a piece I've been thinking about for a long time. One of the most dominant policy ideas in Washington is that policy should, always and everywhere, move parents into paid labor. But what if that's wrong?
My reporting here convinced me that there's no large effect in either direction on labor force participation from child allowances. Canada has a bigger one than either Romney or Biden are considering, and more labor force participation among women.
But what if that wasn't true?
Forcing parents into low-wage, often exploitative, jobs by threatening them and their children with poverty may be counted as a success by some policymakers, but it’s a sign of a society that doesn’t value the most essential forms of labor.
The problem is in the very language we use. If I left my job as a New York Times columnist to care for my 2-year-old son, I’d be described as leaving the labor force. But as much as I adore him, there is no doubt I’d be working harder. I wouldn't have stopped working!
I tried to render conservative objections here fairly. I appreciate that @swinshi talked with me, and I'm sorry I couldn't include everything he said. I'll say I believe I used his strongest arguments, not more speculative ones, in the piece.
My reporting here convinced me that there's no large effect in either direction on labor force participation from child allowances. Canada has a bigger one than either Romney or Biden are considering, and more labor force participation among women.
But what if that wasn't true?
Forcing parents into low-wage, often exploitative, jobs by threatening them and their children with poverty may be counted as a success by some policymakers, but it’s a sign of a society that doesn’t value the most essential forms of labor.
The problem is in the very language we use. If I left my job as a New York Times columnist to care for my 2-year-old son, I’d be described as leaving the labor force. But as much as I adore him, there is no doubt I’d be working harder. I wouldn't have stopped working!
I tried to render conservative objections here fairly. I appreciate that @swinshi talked with me, and I'm sorry I couldn't include everything he said. I'll say I believe I used his strongest arguments, not more speculative ones, in the piece.
I appreciate his intellectual curiosity and effort. I have quibbles. But my big disappointment is there was no mention of unintended consequences, which we discussed and which are kind of THE core conservative concern on this issue.
— \U0001d682\U0001d68c\U0001d698\U0001d69d\U0001d69d \U0001d686\U0001d692\U0001d697\U0001d69c\U0001d691\U0001d692\U0001d699 (@swinshi) February 18, 2021
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
