Diversity quota.

I agree.

"Effective" is the key.

I listen to "Front Row" (broad arts programme) on BBC R4 most nights and they have a great balance.

I'm curious Doodledog what does your pansexual friend get access to that would be denied if he didn't "tick the right box"?

I can't get too excited about a transgender woman winning a poetry or literary prize, they have to win it with talent and by being considered the best by the judges. Equally I wouldn't have a problem employing someone who was transgender, lesbian, homosexual, a person of colour or any of the other protected categories but they would have to be the best candidate! There are no points awarded for ticking diversity boxes if you end up employing the wrong person!

Either we need to catagorise by sex or we dont. If prizes, etc are divided by sex then either that division is not necessary or it is. We dont let a certain group of men into that category because of some deeply sexist notion that they present as women.

GrannyGravy13

theworriedwell

Visgir1

My chum, applied several times to get into Medical School as a mature student. She had the right qualification plus was already had a Clinical Science degree.
The year she got her place, is the year she ticked the LGBT box... She knew that swung it from the paperwork.
She is not LGBT, after she got in no one bothered with her, she qualified no problem.

Well done her, we will now have a doctor who is a self acknowledged liar. I hope she isn't my GP.

I think the exact opposite, she is an extremely canny young woman who know her way round bureaucracy.

This skill set will come in handy when navigating the NHS bureaucrats.

No, she's a liar, you've told us she lied. Imagine trusting a doctor who is prepared to lie.

win

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.

Yes the white, straight, non disabled cannot accept that they aren't the best so if they don't get the job and someone who "ticks a box" gets it they know it is unfair. Totally pathetic.

jocork

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!

The explanation for why she was kept on is totally reasonable and far more likely than because she ticked some boxes.

foxie48

I'm curious Doodledog what does your pansexual friend get access to that would be denied if he didn't "tick the right box"?

I can't get too excited about a transgender woman winning a poetry or literary prize, they have to win it with talent and by being considered the best by the judges. Equally I wouldn't have a problem employing someone who was transgender, lesbian, homosexual, a person of colour or any of the other protected categories but they would have to be the best candidate! There are no points awarded for ticking diversity boxes if you end up employing the wrong person!

Entry to awards/competitions/grants that can be accessed by people who identify as LGBTQI+.

I can't get too excited about a transgender woman winning a poetry or literary prize, they have to win it with talent and by being considered the best by the judges.

I can’t either, unless there is a category for women and a TW enters that category. Then it becomes cheating.

Equally I wouldn't have a problem employing someone who was transgender, lesbian, homosexual, a person of colour or any of the other protected categories but they would have to be the best candidate!

Defining the best candidate for the job is important.

If the job is one which will affect how females are treated then a TW is never the best candidate. Even if they have a rack of qualifications, if they turn up as a woman when a female has asked for female assistance or attention, or when chaperoning girls e.g.in Brownie camp they are not the best person.

There are no points awarded for ticking diversity boxes if you end up employing the wrong person!

foxie48

I'm curious Doodledog what does your pansexual friend get access to that would be denied if he didn't "tick the right box"?

I can't get too excited about a transgender woman winning a poetry or literary prize, they have to win it with talent and by being considered the best by the judges. Equally I wouldn't have a problem employing someone who was transgender, lesbian, homosexual, a person of colour or any of the other protected categories but they would have to be the best candidate! There are no points awarded for ticking diversity boxes if you end up employing the wrong person!

You are completely misrepresenting what I was saying, I suspect deliberately. Either that, or you have no experience of what you are talking about. I pointed out very specifically that I wasn't talking about employing anyone, but about competitions, awards, grants etc, so the second point in your post is irrelevant. Anyone who 'had a problem' with employing someone in any of the categories you mention would be breaking the law. Sexuality is about as relevant to talent as religion or hair colour. I don't remember there being categories for gay Artists, musicians etc, do you? There are, and always have been, many gay people in the Arts sector, so there would be no need. It is since the trans lobby pushed the 'most vulnerable group in society' mantra that there have been such categories, as they have been subsumed into LGBTQI+, whether gay people wanted that or not.

I have no objection to anyone winning on merit, including transpeople, and I strongly object to the implication that I might. What I was talking about is that the system that was put in place to ensure that women are represented in the Arts because proportionately that does not happen is being exploited by men who 'identify' as women and enter in the female category where there are fewer applicants, so women lose out twice. As I explained.

Doodledog "You are completely misrepresenting what I was saying, I suspect deliberately."
I have asked you a genuine question about your previous post then left a space and started a completely new paragraph. The rest of my post is not aimed at you tbh I thought that was pretty clear but evidently not. For the record, I don't deliberately misrepresent people and I would hope that fellow posters recognise that that is not my style.

fwiw, and only being a casual reader on here, I actually thought foxie48 was actually agreeing with Doodledog.

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

Another fwiw.
Big Brother. Seems to have attempted to tick box all the possible tick boxes with its' contestants this year.

You only have to look at the tv for examples of diversity over capability.

foxie48

Doodledog "You are completely misrepresenting what I was saying, I suspect deliberately."
I have asked you a genuine question about your previous post then left a space and started a completely new paragraph. The rest of my post is not aimed at you tbh I thought that was pretty clear but evidently not. For the record, I don't deliberately misrepresent people and I would hope that fellow posters recognise that that is not my style.

Whether it was 'aimed at me' or not, the virtue-signalling is unnecessary. Why do you feel the need to point out that you 'wouldn't have a problem' with employing a gay person, if you aren't implying that other people might?

I answered your question in good faith, but it seemed that you were ignoring that answer to talk about gay people and suggesting that someone somewhere would 'get exercised' about a gay person winning a prize. That reference was related to my post, whether you deny it or not. Nobody else has posted about Arts funding and how it works (which is not by giving preferential treatment based on sexuality, for avoidance of doubt!)

I agree, fancythat that the best person will get the job, and repeat that I was not talking about employment, but about funding, and the way in which 'confusion' about what being a woman means can be detrimental to the female sex, which is something that grew out of the conversation earlier in the thread.

Doodledog since when has giving a POV become "virtue signalling"? I seem to have inadvertently touched a raw nerve, not my intention, however, I do feel your attack on me is somewhat unnecessary, this is what I put in my post.
"I wouldn't have a problem employing someone who was transgender, lesbian, homosexual, a person of colour or any of the other protected categories but they would have to be the best candidate!"

I know what you put in your post. I was talking about the bit you didn't quote though:

I can't get too excited about a transgender woman winning a poetry or literary prize, they have to win it with talent and by being considered the best by the judges.

That is the part to which I object, as it does seem to be directed at my comment about the Arts sector, and because if very clearly suggests that I would 'get too excited' about a transgender woman winning a prize if they won it with talent etc. I don't care who wins if they win a prize (or get a grant, an award or anything else) on merit. I do object if a category designed to encourage women's voices to be heard is hijacked by those 'identifying' as women, which is the point I am making. The hints at transphobia, homophobia and general intolerance is why I felt the need to push back - that is not my motivation for objecting. I just want a fair deal for women, and was trying to point out that whereas sometimes the categories are there for good reason (ie under-representation of groups) there are ways in which the good intentions of those who instigated them can be subverted in what is already a very competitive arena.

I've said all this more than once though, so will leave people to read it if they wish and draw their own conclusions.

Doodledog

I know what you put in your post. I was talking about the bit you didn't quote though:

I can't get too excited about a transgender woman winning a poetry or literary prize, they have to win it with talent and by being considered the best by the judges.

That is the part to which I object, as it does seem to be directed at my comment about the Arts sector, and because if very clearly suggests that I would 'get too excited' about a transgender woman winning a prize if they won it with talent etc. I don't care who wins if they win a prize (or get a grant, an award or anything else) on merit. I do object if a category designed to encourage women's voices to be heard is hijacked by those 'identifying' as women, which is the point I am making. The hints at transphobia, homophobia and general intolerance is why I felt the need to push back - that is not my motivation for objecting. I just want a fair deal for women, and was trying to point out that whereas sometimes the categories are there for good reason (ie under-representation of groups) there are ways in which the good intentions of those who instigated them can be subverted in what is already a very competitive arena.

I've said all this more than once though, so will leave people to read it if they wish and draw their own conclusions.

Well it wasn't. I quoted the part I thought you were referring to and it is what I think, nowhere have I suggested that you might "get excited" or in deed anyone else might get excited.

Ok