Categories Society
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
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

...with options:
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

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.
3/16

You then ask for the 'gender identity' of the applicant, saying "Gender identity is how you would describe your own gender; this could differ from your legal gender." with the same options of:
Female
Male.
4/16

'Gender identity' 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
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
A new study found that giving low-income workers money upfront in their work period helped alleviate the mental burden of their financial problems and allowed them to be more productive \u2014 echoing other findings on the psychological impacts of poverty.https://t.co/zdxItTLDLZ
— NPR (@NPR) February 3, 2021
“Giving money to people in poverty solves poverty” is an obvious truth, which needs (another) study for proof, for the same reason that this finding will be ignored (again).
We don’t want to fix poverty, even if doing so helps everyone—not if it means life for the “undeserving.”
It’s not about saving money.
There's a great fear in this country that a single dollar might go to someone who might not deserve it; or that a single given dollar might be spent on something we deem unworthy.
We'll spend five dollars to prevent the waste of that one dollar.
The manifestations are everywhere. From the overt, gleefully cruel hostility of conservatism toward people in poverty, of course. But also hidden in almost everyone's assumptions.
Our use of charity as a way of controlling who gets helped, for example.
Charity isn't primarily an act.
— A.R. Moxon (@JuliusGoat) November 10, 2019
Before the act comes an alignment.
Charity is the natural fruit of a deep alignment with the virtue of generosity.
It sure shouldn't be a delivery mechanism for one's own beliefs about worthiness.
Even the reversal—a desire to prevent aid from going to "undeserving" wealthy who don't need it (true)—leads us to create obstacles to aid people in poverty often can't overcome, but wealthy people can.
Which is why wealthy people like means
Whenever someone proposes a means-testing solution, it's an indication they've internalized the lie, foundational to the United States, that some people deserve life and others don't.
— A.R. Moxon (@JuliusGoat) December 18, 2020
It's an expensive lie.
On the UK "will not hesitate" to tighten border
For the record
Months the UK "hesitated"
January 2020
February 2020
March 2020
April 2020
May 2020
June 2020
July 2020
August 2020
September 2020
October 2020
November 2020
December 2020
January 2021
February 2021
Priti Patel
Is eager to divulge internal debate held in cabinet to bolster her reputation & get a boost for Tory leadership post Boris
“On ‘should we have closed our borders earlier?’ the answer is yes, I was an advocate [of] closing them last
So this is going to be a really simple thread
I have a larger thread on Priti Patel
Which we will come to at the last
But I want to focus on
“On ‘should we have closed our borders earlier?’ the answer is yes, I was an advocate [of] closing them last March.”
So I would ask of Priti
What evidence did you have that informed your advocacy?
Did you have (to borrow a phrase) an "absolute burden of proof"?
Was it just a hunch or belief?
Were you trying to "do-good" so to
Ian Hislop explains to Priti Patel why she's wrong about supporting capital punishment, but she disagrees claiming "absolute burden of proof" means innocent people will never be wrongly executed.#c4news @LBC #r4today #bbcqt #PoliticsLive #Newsnight #bbcaq #marr #GE2019 pic.twitter.com/dsQ98AzHQH
— I Am Incorrigible FCA (@ImIncorrigible) September 15, 2019