Period Dignity Officer post scrapped!

No. I meant if you end up with a sex discrimination case against you the process hasnt been seamless. I meant the organisation. I have said numerous times I have no real strong feeling about the sex of the post holder.

Galaxy

That indicates a lack of competence with regard to the process.

Why? Because you imagine a man can't do a job which you have absolutely no knowledge or experience of?

I really find this whole thing disturbing. Are we now to see male teachers told what they can and can't discuss with girls? Can we expect jobs which involve any contact with teenage girls to be restricted to women? How far do people really want to take this?

That indicates a lack of competence with regard to the process.

eazybee

If they did have legal advice they probably chose not to access it. This group seems out of touch with reality.

Well of course they are- they are women aren't they!!!!
I can't believe how many people think they are more qualified than the women on the panel to decide who should do a job that they didn't even know existed until they found out through newspapers.

Not only apparently is the man appointed incompetent and incapable, so are the women who sat on the panel which appointed him. (with the added accusation that they may also be corrupt).

Honestly how can anyone justify the harm that is being done by this judgement by media.
Harm to the man who applied for and got the job absolutely within the law.
Harm to the women who sat on the panel that appointed him.
Harm to the women and girls who would have benefitted from better provision of sanitary products.

I imagine there will be a legal out of court settlement, because he has a strong case.

If they did have legal advice they probably chose not to access it. This group seems out of touch with reality.

If the reports are accurate they will face a case for sex discrimination. Did they not have legal advice.

The original post says it all: Personally, I think that common-sense should have been applied in the first place, and a woman appointed to the position.

Common sense has now prevailed, but this misjudged appointment has caused damage to the aim of preventing period poverty.

If we evolve our ways of thinking and being in the world to such a degree that biological sex has no meaning then none of these issues would matter a jot. If we transcend beyond biological sex in our emotions our feelings our psyche, then how would our lives be, just visualise, imagine, I think we are being primed to accept loosing our humanity to what constitutes humanness itself, to be so dulled in our senses we become robotic. Thank goodness for passion and powerful emotions debate and disagreements, thank goodness we all think and act differently we’re alive not machines. I Love that I bleed that I’m a woman.

I am still failing to understand how he was qualified for this post, gender notwithstanding.

Academic now as the post no longer exists, but it was puzzling.

What aspersions? I’m just agreeing with Glorianny.
Now you’re casting aspersions on me and don’t think we’ve met. Nice.

Mollygo

Absolutely Glorianny. It would never do to appoint the most appropriate, knowledgeable and well qualified person for a role just because she is female. Far better to appoint someone who has no experience of some if the issues but has a friend on the appointment panel.

Casting aspersions on the honesty of women you've never met.

Nice.

Yes I know Glorianny that's why I said in my second post that it wouldnt apply to this job. But people had broadened it out to wider issues.

Absolutely Glorianny. It would never do to appoint the most appropriate, knowledgeable and well qualified person for a role just because she is female. Far better to appoint someone who has no experience of some if the issues but has a friend on the appointment panel.

SueDonim

Mr Grant is now taking legal action.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-62826983

to call discrimination we must accept that by being gender inclusive on a female issue it would exclude certain female groups that would be excluded, including those who were absolutely more vulnerable than Mr Grant - females with disabilities, females from certain religious groups, abused females, etc

why does nobody get it

SueDonim

Mr Grant is now taking legal action.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-62826983

So he didn't resign then. ?

It's all going swimmingly, isn't it?

Posted with no comment.

ilovecheese implicitly assumed that the person who appointed Jason was a man. The pronoun "he" was used.

I pointed out that it was an all female panel who appointed him.

Not out of context at all.

Interesting that in a discussion about whether a man is right for a job, someone assumes that a man did the job of four women.

Galaxy

There are obviously many jobs which can be allocated to a particular sex. I think the term is objective justification.

There needs to be a legitimate reason for such appointments and this obviously had no such restrictions. Apparently some people think the law shouldn't apply and media pressure and personal outrage are the way these things should be regulated. Everyone should be worried by how this was done.

Mr Grant is now taking legal action.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-62826983

Taken out of context:

I think the bigger problem is the way he was appointed, as described in the first paragraph of easybee quote above. He was given the appointment by the person who had given him his previous jobs. The post was advertised for a very short time and not very widely
It doesn't look good when there are suggestions of nepotism in these sorts of appointments. Whoever did appoint him though, should have stuck with him if he thought he really was the best person for the job, not jettisoned him at the first sign of trouble

Ilovecheese, today, 20:11.

Strange that he was jettisoned at the first sign of trouble then if he was the best person for the job.
However, has the role been jettisoned too?
Perhaps more investigations would have found queries with the selection process.

Whoever did appoint him though, should have stuck with him if he thought he really was the best person for the job, not jettisoned him at the first sign of trouble.

Ilovecheese, today, 20:11.

That was mentioned in the previous thread in this topic.

Oh, should have mentioned...the appointment panel was all female. Shocker, innit.

not jettisoned him at the first sign of trouble.

He resigned. Man of principle.

So the business needs to prove that a protected chatacteristic is required. I am not saying it applies to this job but it is certainly something that can happen.

There are obviously many jobs which can be allocated to a particular sex. I think the term is objective justification.