Male
Female
Non-binary
Other Gender.
2/12
Hi @lgbtys @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk
The Equal Opportunities Monitoring Form in your job application asks, under the heading of 'GENDER', "How would you describe your gender identity?" with options...
https://t.co/JPJHYaLyYc
1/12
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
3/12
https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF
'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.
4/12
(Equality organisations use the terms "transgender" and "trans" as inclusive umbrella terms for a diverse range of people who find their gender identity....
6/12
There is a protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment', but the terms and definition you use here are not used or defined in the Act.
https://t.co/2o53ufahzA
7/12
8/12
9/12
10/12
11/12
Please respond.
https://t.co/RJAWJ1vJ6s
12/12
More from sexnotgender.info
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 @Census2021 @ons @IanDiamond11 @_datasmith @PhilippaBonay @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk
The 'Diversity' section of your job application states you promote 'not discriminating under the Equality Act 2010'.
However...
1/11
However, you then ask for the 'Gender' of the applicant with options:
Man
Woman
Prefer to self describe.
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 & the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' &'Male' as defined in the Act & consistent with biology, but you don't ask for that. 'Self-describe' is not a valid option
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 'Diversity' section of your job application states you promote 'not discriminating under the Equality Act 2010'.
However...
1/11
However, you then ask for the 'Gender' of the applicant with options:
Man
Woman
Prefer to self describe.
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 & the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' &'Male' as defined in the Act & consistent with biology, but you don't ask for that. 'Self-describe' is not a valid option
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 @scottishprisons @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk
In the Equal Opportunities Monitoring section of your job application, you list sex as one of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.
However...
1/14
cc @wornoutmumhack
However, you then ask "How would you describe your gender?" with options:
Male
Female.
2/14
'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
3/14
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.
4/14
You then ask "Is your gender identity the same as the gender you were originally assigned at birth?"
5/14
In the Equal Opportunities Monitoring section of your job application, you list sex as one of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.
However...
1/14
cc @wornoutmumhack
However, you then ask "How would you describe your gender?" with options:
Male
Female.
2/14
'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
3/14
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.
4/14
You then ask "Is your gender identity the same as the gender you were originally assigned at birth?"
5/14
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
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
More from Society
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
1/12
RT-PCR corona (test) scam
Symptomatic people are tested for one and only one respiratory virus. This means that other acute respiratory infections are reclassified as
2/12
It is tested exquisitely with a hypersensitive non-specific RT-PCR test / Ct >35 (>30 is nonsense, >35 is madness), without considering Ct and clinical context. This means that more acute respiratory infections are reclassified as
3/12
The Drosten RT-PCR test is fabricated in a way that each country and laboratory perform it differently at too high Ct and that the high rate of false positives increases massively due to cross-reaction with other (corona) viruses in the "flu
4/12
Even asymptomatic, previously called healthy, people are tested (en masse) in this way, although there is no epidemiologically relevant asymptomatic transmission. This means that even healthy people are declared as COVID
5/12
Deaths within 28 days after a positive RT-PCR test from whatever cause are designated as deaths WITH COVID. This means that other causes of death are reclassified as
RT-PCR corona (test) scam
Symptomatic people are tested for one and only one respiratory virus. This means that other acute respiratory infections are reclassified as
4/10
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) October 22, 2020
...indication, first of all that testing for a (single) respiratory virus is done outside of surveillance systems or need for specific therapy, but even so the lack of consideration of Ct, symptoms and clinical findings when interpreting its result. https://t.co/gHH6kwRdZG
2/12
It is tested exquisitely with a hypersensitive non-specific RT-PCR test / Ct >35 (>30 is nonsense, >35 is madness), without considering Ct and clinical context. This means that more acute respiratory infections are reclassified as
6/10
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) October 22, 2020
The neither validated nor standardised hypersensitive RT-PCR test / Ct 35-45 for SARS-CoV-2 is abused to mislabel (also) other diseases, especially influenza, as COVID-19.https://t.co/AkFIfTCTkS
3/12
The Drosten RT-PCR test is fabricated in a way that each country and laboratory perform it differently at too high Ct and that the high rate of false positives increases massively due to cross-reaction with other (corona) viruses in the "flu
External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results.https://t.co/mbNY8bdw1p pic.twitter.com/OQBD4grMth
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) November 29, 2020
4/12
Even asymptomatic, previously called healthy, people are tested (en masse) in this way, although there is no epidemiologically relevant asymptomatic transmission. This means that even healthy people are declared as COVID
Thread web\u2b06\ufe0f\u2b07\ufe0f
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) December 16, 2020
The fabrication of the "asymptomatic (super) spreader" is the coronation of the total nons(ci)ense in the belief system of #CoronasWitnesses.
Asymptomatic transmission 0.7%; 95% CI 0%-4.9% - could well be 0%!https://t.co/VeZTzxXfvT
5/12
Deaths within 28 days after a positive RT-PCR test from whatever cause are designated as deaths WITH COVID. This means that other causes of death are reclassified as
8/8
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) March 24, 2020
By the way, who the f*** created this obviously (almost) worldwide definition of #CoronaDeath?
This is not only medical malpractice, this is utterly insane!https://t.co/FFsTx4L2mw
