Hi @WomensBudgetGrp @EHRC @EHRCChair @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk

The
Equal Opportunities Monitoring Form in your job application mentions the Equality Act 2010 and asks for the sex of the applicant with the options male and female.

https://t.co/IoHnmc6q0e

1/11

However, you then ask for their 'Gender identity' with options:

Woman
Man
Trans woman
Trans man
Non-binary
Other

2/11
'Gender identity' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/pNaDVxRAvK

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.

4/11
Woman and Man are the terms used in the Act for the protected characteristic of sex. The other terms are not used in the Act or defined in the Act.

5/11
There is a protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment', but that is a different protected characteristic to the protected characteristic of sex.

6/11
Asking about a personal characteristic such as 'gender identity' 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.

7/11
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.

8/11
If you choose to discriminate on characteristics that are not protected characteristics under the Act, you may inadvertently indirectly discriminate on protected grounds.

9/11
Language and meaning of words are important and proper use & understanding of terms is vital so that the public is aware of what rights they have and what your duties are. Any confusion or inconsistency over meaning may prevent people from accessing their rights in law.

10/11
Will you undertake to correct these errors and to review all your other policies, documents, reports, etc to ensure compliance?

Please respond.

11/11
@threadreaderapp unroll

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
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.

You May Also Like

1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.