Diversity quota.

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

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.

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.

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.

Mollygo yes!!

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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!!

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.

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.

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.

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).

Yes, but that refers to the number of people who defined themselves as transgender on the census.

There is no register of transpeople (and I am not saying there should be - the 30s show where recording people in terms of such characteristics can lead), so we are left with self ID, which allows people to define themselves in various ways, and means that stats regarding the actual position of women is impossible to know.

I strongly suspect that this is deliberate. Laws to protect women against discrimination have no teeth if we don't know who is a woman and who isn't, and/or if we define 'a woman' as being anyone who says they are a woman. Who benefits from that? Not women.

Doodledog I take a very pragmatic view with regard to issues concerning transgender women, society is still working through the problems of treating them the same as a biological woman and basically, I don't think we are there yet!

More than 90%of transgender women prisoners are in male prisons and there is no obligation to move anyone according to their preference, it is considered on a case by case basis.
More sports are recognising that being born male confers a physical advantage on transgender women and are taking appropriate action.
I struggle to think of many situations when it is advantageous to be female which is surely why female gender is a protected category. Surely to elect to be a transgender woman is only an advantage in situations when physical size and strength is an advantage?
I'm really happy to be educated on these matters but I think being transgender must be really difficult. I only know one transgender woman and she's not a close friend but I do know her life was dreadfully sad and traumatic until she transitioned. It's still difficult but at least more of us have a greater understand of the issues she has faced in her life despite the positive advantages of being born a white male.

foxie48
The issues around transgender have mainly arisen through those males who lie about their sex in order to access female facilities or steal female awards. Also around the death threats and harm to anyone who truthfully says you can’t change sex.
Their actions have harmed and impacted not only females but those who may simply be unhappy in their birth sex like the person you mentioned.
In years gone by, when, as we are assured, trans existed, they rarely received publicity unless they sought it. Today so many seek publicity, usually in ways that are detrimental to females, that the public perception of trans is mostly negative.
It’s even fashionable, as I read this morning to boast that you are bisexual and non-binary. If that fails to get the attention they want, they’ll probably add trans to that next.

I agree with Molly, and would add as answer to your question, foxie that there are definitely times when self IDing as female is an advantage. What about the chap who won the women's poetry prize? There was a thread about this a while ago - i am working, so don't have time to find it, but it is there somewhere.

Much of what little money is to be made in the Arts sector comes from prizes and awards, and increasingly these are broken down into groups to encourage under-represented people. This started as a way to broaden the scope of the Arts, so it wouldn't only be the voices of middle class white men who were heard (which is a good thing), but has become more and more exclusionary by restricting entry to increasingly niche sections of society.

Coincidentally (?) the number of LGBTQI+ (add initials as they come onstream) working class, disabled neurodivergent Artists with links to England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales (and numerous regions within) appears to have ballooned. Of course ways should be found to include everyone, but I honestly can't see what someone's 'gender' feelings have to do with their ability to paint, or their self-defined social class has to do with their skill at dancing. By all means have grants to educate those who can't afford it, and make it clear on prospectuses and awards literature that there will be no prejudice (have anonymous entries, for instance), but why have categories that exclude people?

I stress that this has nothing to do with employment EDI monitoring, however. It is (AFAIK) particular to areas such as Art, dance, performance, photography, poetry and so on.

As you so rightly say, after 100's of years of the arts being primarily a western white male preserve, the first moves were to do two things

Firstly, to retrieve the artistic voices of women and other forgotten groups from the past consigned to "lesser" status, if remembered at all. And to accept that different POV from the old mainstream are as important/valid. A great deal of argument on what "good" art is (and still happening)

Secondly, to create opportunities for recognition of those voices in the present, and that was often initially done by specific awards/support for groups affected.

Whether this is still necessary, and to what extent, is a matter of outlook, probably of degree.

But it does sometimes come into the world of who gets employed in the arts, who holds positions of power.

Years ago, before they removed some of the rules about retirement age, a colleague was told she had to retire at 60. She wanted to stay on, was still fully capable of carrying out the role and was upset that she hadn't realised sooner. I was the union rep in the workplace at the time and fought her case. She kept her job for another year but then had to retire.Part of her argument was that she didn't know in advance to prepare herself, hence the one year stay of execution!
However another colleague had passed 60 and was kept on. She was our accounts person who had worked there for years. The whole place was due to relocate to amalgamate with another site 50 miles away so anyone unwilling to relocate would be out of a job, and some roles would disappear, including this accounts person, so she was kept on because her experince and historic knowledge meant she was valuable and a new person would need a lot of training for a job that would not last long term. This was the argument given. However this employee was also disabled. She ticked quite a few boxes on the deversity front. I suspected this carried some weight but could notprove it! My colleague who had to leave a year later was easier to replace and no special points on the diversity front. Very unfair in my opinion!

Whether this is still necessary, and to what extent, is a matter of outlook, probably of degree.

But it does sometimes come into the world of who gets employed in the arts, who holds positions of power.
I would argue that whether it is necessary or not, it is whether it is effective or not that needs to be questioned and considered.

I personally know someone who 'ticks numerous boxes' (not a phrase I like, but I am using it as shorthand) and some of them are entirely irrelevant. One, for instance is pansexuality. This person has been monogamously married for decades - any reference to sexuality can only be in his head, and whether he fantasises about men, women or goats is really neither here nor there. He lives a conventional life with his wife and family, but gets to tick the LGBTQI+ box which gets entry to things that he wouldn't have access to otherwise.

That does not move the position of women, the disabled or POC (r any disadvantaged group) in any way that I can see.

The Arts has traditionally been far more liberal when it comes to tolerance of different sexualities anyway - I can't imagine many situations in which someone would be held back because of being gay (or identifying into any other category) these days, and the same applies to 'gender'. But being a male who identifies as a woman gives access to two categories, as so-called 'gender fluidity' is acceptable too. It doesn't take a statistician to work out that this does put women at a disadvantage in a situation traditionally dominated by men. If men can also identify as women, the figure stop adding up in any sensible way.