Diversity quota.

Doodledog I absolutely take your point but according to the last census numbers of transgender women and transgender men was extremely small (both 0.1% of the 93% who answered the question).

Mollygo

The problem with any discrimination is that as soon as you make it illegal to discriminate against one group, you are discriminating against anyone not in that group.

Yes, which is why it is not legal to discriminate.

The exception, of course, is when men say they are women, and get counted in the female statistics. This is a double whammy for women, as they not only miss out on being appointed, but appear to be fully represented in the figures. Worse, it is supposedly being done in the name of inclusion.

Freya5

foxie48

But they aren't, Cateq that's the whole point. Straight white males aren't being disadvaged in any way, diversity policies just try to ensure that there's a level playing field for EVERYONE regardless of gender, race, etc etc. btw The capital letters are for emphasis not to shout.

I beg to differ. Remember when fit eligible white men were told they wouldn't be allowed to become pilots, because they were white. Pleased to say the RAF were found guilty of discrimination and fined heavily.
Guess they won't try that again, and award places on merit , not the colour of the skin, or sexual preferences.
Diversity gone bonkers.

Well you've proved my point, the RAF were found guilty of discrimination because they were not operating a level playing ground. It was a good example of not understanding the laws around diversity and equal opportunity.

The problem with any discrimination is that as soon as you make it illegal to discriminate against one group, you are discriminating against anyone not in that group.

On a lighter note, many moons ago, shortly after the sex discrimination act was passed, my dad was on a civil service interview panel and, dredging around for something to ask a candidate ( who happened to be female) he asked her what her opinion was on the sex act .... then realised what he had said!!

foxie48

But they aren't, Cateq that's the whole point. Straight white males aren't being disadvaged in any way, diversity policies just try to ensure that there's a level playing field for EVERYONE regardless of gender, race, etc etc. btw The capital letters are for emphasis not to shout.

I beg to differ. Remember when fit eligible white men were told they wouldn't be allowed to become pilots, because they were white. Pleased to say the RAF were found guilty of discrimination and fined heavily.
Guess they won't try that again, and award places on merit , not the colour of the skin, or sexual preferences.
Diversity gone bonkers.

But they aren't, Cateq that's the whole point. Straight white males aren't being disadvaged in any way, diversity policies just try to ensure that there's a level playing field for EVERYONE regardless of gender, race, etc etc. btw The capital letters are for emphasis not to shout.

Greyduster, I recently retired from a large insurance company and diversity is a constant topic of our management. I really feel for any straight white young men these days , they’re most definitely at the bottom of anyone’s list.

charley68

I wonder how well the OP's daughter's 'work management' understand the Equality Act, and Employment Rights, that the Employer is supposed to observe and follow.

Well they didn't understand it and tbh neither did the daughter so clearly hadn't had any training. It's no wonder that so many people accept completely wrong messages about this area of legislation!

Surely someone's sexual orientation is a personal and private matter, whether anyone mentions it at work must be purely a chance matter.

Years ago I worked with a woman I assumed was gay. She shared a home with a woman she acknowledged as her best friend and went on holiday with. After a couple of years she mentioned that her friend was moving out as she was marrying her long term boyfriend. I had entirely misinterpreted the situation. Since I had never said anything to anyone, one way or the other, I did no harm.

DD is single and childless by intention, she has had people assume she was gay. She isn't. Does it matter?

I think if an employer challenged me on the gender issue, I would ask how I was to know the gender orientation of my staff, and if they said I should ask them I would challenge them to ask them what right I had to ask such a question. In fact to ask such a question would itself be discriminatory.

I wonder how well the OP's daughter's 'work management' understand the Equality Act, and Employment Rights, that the Employer is supposed to observe and follow.

Am I wrong in thinking that, at one time employers had to agree to employing a certain amount of disabled people ( 10%?). Or was that just local government or the civil service, which is where I mainly worked.

"So they should, but that’s impossible in a world where people can make up their individual needs and requirements where they see an advantage in doing so."

What advantage do you see in belonging to a protected category? The reason we have laws against discrimination is because members of these groups are discriminated against and are often under represented in certain sectors of employment despite being well qualified. No one is suggesting that the best person for the job should not be selected all that is being said is that candidates should be appointed fairly and in a non discriminatory way. I find it odd that anyone is threatened by this.
The person who said they were LBGT when they were not, has absolutely no idea if it made any difference to their application. Graduate entry medicine is extremely competitive, however, the med schools are very clear about their minimum requirements so it is a bit of a lottery as to who is successful, perhaps her number came up on that occasion and had nothing to do with her telling lies. Who knows? Certainly people who belong to protected categories know they are discriminated against, there's plenty of evidence.

Mollygo yes!!

Win
everyone should be treated to their individual needs and requirements.

So they should, but that’s impossible in a world where people can make up their individual needs and requirements where they see an advantage in doing so.

Doodledog

How many times does it have to be said that the best person will get the job?

The EDI questions are for statistical purposes only, and are separate from the rest of the application forms.

It would not be legal to specify a black woman over 40, or a white man with a disability for a role (outside of some specific roles, such as wanting a female carer for a female patient, and even those waters are muddied because some transwomen insist on applying for roles that involve intimate care of women).

Some people can't accept that they (or their children) just weren't the best person for the job, or that a woman (or whatever) could possibly have beaten a man (or whomever) by just being better, so they tell people they lost out due to EDI reasons.

Absolutely this, the stories people make up around EDI are just incredible.

eazybee

The answer should be; treat them exactly the same as every one else.
Why should they be accorded different treatment because of a different sexual orientation?

Sorry that is totally incorrect Eazybee, everyone should be treated to their individual needs and requirements. EDI is NOT about treating everyone the same, it is about enabling them to grow to their full potential. Everyone has different needs and should be treated according to their needs.

Do you not think it's a good aim to get a balanced audience? Seeing people in wheelchairs? Reasonably diverse as in reflecting our population?

I take your point about possible "tokenism" but their main aim has been to get a political balance recently.

I suppose people could lie about their voting intentions or loyalty but they can only do their best.

This is an interesting article on a less obvious (as we cant see them) example, Radio 4's "any questions") It gives a pretty fair idea of just how difficult it is but how they make an effort to be balanced.
www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/anyquestions_organiser.shtml

It's not just employees is it? have you noticed how careful the BBC is when selecting members of the public to appear in quizzes or other shows ?
You can guarantee that there will be someone disabled in some way, a mix of nationalities, and probably some from the LGBT community and trans community although they may not be quite so obvious. I wonder how many have lied about their sexual orientation just to get selected!!

Wyllow3

I agree - ludicrous on a library form.
Different in terms of a census.

Change has not just come out of the ether to reach a point when we can simply say, "best person for the job" and assume that there will be no. discrimination:

It's been based on real past discrimination and a combination of laws, raising awareness, and some quite brave individuals who have brought about this change.

I shall never forget the mockery and hatred towards a gay man at work in the 1980's simply because he was gay. It came out accidentally - he had spent a life of hiding: I can also recall the struggles of women to get equal pay for equal work, also well within most of our lifetimes.

Worriedwell 's example of the young man convinced he had been discriminated against is an attitude that has by no means disappeared altogether.

If we have reached a point where the questions the O/P's DD was asked are no longer as pertinent, then time for change.

Same where I worked in the 90s social services, our Liverpudlian boss was a real B, he was a nasty bully, one our the new male care staff was gay- he started singing 🎶 sing if you’re glad to be gay🎶 by Tom Robinson at the top of his lungs poor lad was so embarrassed, I walked out in sheer disgust & reported him to head office, my bosses line manager said, I probably took offence because I was sensitive 😩It just would not happen today.

How many times does it have to be said that the best person will get the job?

The EDI questions are for statistical purposes only, and are separate from the rest of the application forms.

It would not be legal to specify a black woman over 40, or a white man with a disability for a role (outside of some specific roles, such as wanting a female carer for a female patient, and even those waters are muddied because some transwomen insist on applying for roles that involve intimate care of women).

Some people can't accept that they (or their children) just weren't the best person for the job, or that a woman (or whatever) could possibly have beaten a man (or whomever) by just being better, so they tell people they lost out due to EDI reasons.

This has been going on for years. Tick boxes. Impossible to get a job with local authorities unless you fulfill a diversity tick box or are applying for senior positions. Should be best person for the job.

knspol

Another here who thinks selection should be based on merit and definitely not sexual orientation. I wonder if it's actually legal to ask your daughter such a question and in any event how would she be expected to know?

Just gone looking for information. Its definitely not legal to ask questions about what are described a "protected characteristics"

"Protected characteristics
Sexual orientation is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, which means employers cannot discriminate against applicants based on it.

Illegal questions

Asking about sexual orientation is illegal and is considered a breach of discrimination legislation.

Other prohibited questions
Employers cannot ask about other protected characteristics, such as:
Age
Disability
Gender reassignment
Marriage and civil partnership
Pregnancy and maternity
Race
Religion or belief
Sex

So I don't see how the O/P's daughter can know the answers!

Aveline

At an introductory session for medical students recently they were all asked to say their names and their pronouns. Blimey. Surely, if anybody, prospective doctors need to know a person's biological persona and like, the rest of us, can tell at a glance what that is. What they 'feel' they might be is irrelevant.

It's possible that a concern was that doctors in training need to understand the details of diversity since they have to help patients from all backgrounds. This includes an understanding a patient may not want to be treated by them as well as giving a patient the courtesy of addressing them as they choose.

I'm not sure how the person you mention got through the interview process, cc. Perhaps they performed OK at interview?
Very poor management and not at all in the spirit of diverse appointments if they clearly were not up to doing the work at all. It only puts peoples backs up against acceptance of diversity.

Another here who thinks selection should be based on merit and definitely not sexual orientation. I wonder if it's actually legal to ask your daughter such a question and in any event how would she be expected to know?