Diversity quota.

Ok

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.

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 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!"

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.

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

^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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.