Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok" She agrees^ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist." Is sexism always bad? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. On what occasion would sexism be good? Is sexism always bad?" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. Is sexism always bad?" Bob behave | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. On what occasion would sexism be good? Is sexism always bad?" I'm asking, not telling, but I can think of some that are less bad. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. Is sexism always bad? Bob behave " Put your bum in my face and make me   | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. Is sexism always bad? Bob behave Put your bum in my face and make me "Mmmm x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. On what occasion would sexism be good? Is sexism always bad? I'm asking, not telling, but I can think of some that are less bad." That's what I mean, which situations would sexism be good? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. Is sexism always bad?" Yes. Next question. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. On what occasion would sexism be good? Is sexism always bad? I'm asking, not telling, but I can think of some that are less bad. That's what I mean, which situations would sexism be good?" You tell me? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. Is sexism always bad? Yes. Next question." How about positive discrimination for example, placing more women in senior positions? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. On what occasion would sexism be good? Is sexism always bad? I'm asking, not telling, but I can think of some that are less bad. That's what I mean, which situations would sexism be good? You tell me?" You're the one saying you can think of situations where sexuality would be sexist so it is on you to provide examples and explain why. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. On what occasion would sexism be good? Is sexism always bad? I'm asking, not telling, but I can think of some that are less bad. That's what I mean, which situations would sexism be good? You tell me? You're the one saying you can think of situations where sexuality would be sexist so it is on you to provide examples and explain why." See above  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. Is sexism always bad? Yes. Next question. How about positive discrimination for example, placing more women in senior positions? "It's a difficult one but, as a woman in a senior position, I'd only want the job if I was the best candidate. Not because I lack testes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. On what occasion would sexism be good? Is sexism always bad? I'm asking, not telling, but I can think of some that are less bad. That's what I mean, which situations would sexism be good? You tell me? You're the one saying you can think of situations where sexuality would be sexist so it is on you to provide examples and explain why. See above "That would be using someone's sexuality to be sexist in a positive manner, which shouldn't happen as the best candidates should get a position, by making sure a certain sex gets a fair chance can be implemented but the overall decision should be based on suitability for the role, your original question was asking if sexuality as a whole is sexist, you're now changing the question entirely to fit a specific point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. Is sexism always bad? Yes. Next question. How about positive discrimination for example, placing more women in senior positions? "Discrimination is still discrimination. Women should not be placed in senior positions just because they are women. They should be placed because they are capable of doing the job better than anyone else regardless of gender. The movement to place more women is a movement to remove the discrimination not turn it into a positive one | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. Is sexism always bad? Yes. Next question. How about positive discrimination for example, placing more women in senior positions?
It's a difficult one but, as a woman in a senior position, I'd only want the job if I was the best candidate. Not because I lack testes. "I actually agree, but not many women would be in senior positions (including possibly yourself), without someone carving the way with some positive adjustment to counteract the older prejudices x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. Is sexism always bad? Yes. Next question. How about positive discrimination for example, placing more women in senior positions?
Discrimination is still discrimination.
Women should not be placed in senior positions just because they are women.
They should be placed because they are capable of doing the job better than anyone else regardless of gender.
The movement to place more women is a movement to remove the discrimination not turn it into a positive one "See above | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just think sometimes were trained to see certain things as bad or good when they're just descriptive and functional terms, they don't show the motivation behind they act, right?" We're not trained to as that would be actively submitting a certain sex to unfair treatment and that is now breaking the law, we have institutions that still believe and subscribe to the notion that only a certain sex should be in control of things, usually men, when the proof shows the opposite would probably more beneficial to society. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. On what occasion would sexism be good? Is sexism always bad? I'm asking, not telling, but I can think of some that are less bad." No, it's zexual preference | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. Is sexism always bad? Yes. Next question. How about positive discrimination for example, placing more women in senior positions?
Discrimination is still discrimination.
Women should not be placed in senior positions just because they are women.
They should be placed because they are capable of doing the job better than anyone else regardless of gender.
The movement to place more women is a movement to remove the discrimination not turn it into a positive one
See above"So you're saying she wouldn't be good enough for the job if there wasn't active positive discrimination to help her? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just think sometimes were trained to see certain things as bad or good when they're just descriptive and functional terms, they don't show the motivation behind they act, right? We're not trained to as that would be actively submitting a certain sex to unfair treatment and that is now breaking the law, we have institutions that still believe and subscribe to the notion that only a certain sex should be in control of things, usually men, when the proof shows the opposite would probably more beneficial to society." Isn't the last bit of that statement a little sexist? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just think sometimes were trained to see certain things as bad or good when they're just descriptive and functional terms, they don't show the motivation behind they act, right? We're not trained to as that would be actively submitting a certain sex to unfair treatment and that is now breaking the law, we have institutions that still believe and subscribe to the notion that only a certain sex should be in control of things, usually men, when the proof shows the opposite would probably more beneficial to society. Isn't the last bit of that statement a little sexist?" No, that's simply fact that the majority of institutions of which society is built, are run by and controlled my men. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. On what occasion would sexism be good? Is sexism always bad? I'm asking, not telling, but I can think of some that are less bad. No, it's zexual preference " Is that different to racial preference or age preference or milkshake flavour preference? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. Is sexism always bad? Yes. Next question. How about positive discrimination for example, placing more women in senior positions?
It's a difficult one but, as a woman in a senior position, I'd only want the job if I was the best candidate. Not because I lack testes.
I actually agree, but not many women would be in senior positions (including possibly yourself), without someone carving the way with some positive adjustment to counteract the older prejudices x"I think you will find it is education and re-eduction that is responsible not positive discrimination | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just think sometimes were trained to see certain things as bad or good when they're just descriptive and functional terms, they don't show the motivation behind they act, right? We're not trained to as that would be actively submitting a certain sex to unfair treatment and that is now breaking the law, we have institutions that still believe and subscribe to the notion that only a certain sex should be in control of things, usually men, when the proof shows the opposite would probably more beneficial to society. Isn't the last bit of that statement a little sexist? No, that's simply fact that the majority of institutions of which society is built, are run by and controlled my men." But women could do a better job and there's "proof"? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. Is sexism always bad? Yes. Next question. How about positive discrimination for example, placing more women in senior positions?
It's a difficult one but, as a woman in a senior position, I'd only want the job if I was the best candidate. Not because I lack testes.
I actually agree, but not many women would be in senior positions (including possibly yourself), without someone carving the way with some positive adjustment to counteract the older prejudices x"I work in an organisation with a female CEO and a strong tradition of female leadership. I was appointed to my current role whilst pregnant and returned from a very brief mat leave as s newly disabled female, still breastfeeding. My employer facilitated my return by making reasonable adjustments and, five years after my appointment, I'm still working FT and doing a damn good job. My point? Remove the obstacles that make it harder for women to ascend the career ladder, and we wouldn't need to have conversations about positive discrimination. Ditto for disabled people and other marginalised groups. Install ramps/lifts instead of stairs Make all toilets accessible Engender a culture of tolerance and call out bullying language e.g homophobic language Provide clean and quiet rooms for nursing mothers Set reasonable expectations of hours worked Permit hybrid or home working, where there's no reason to obstruct it Etc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. Is sexism always bad? Yes. Next question. How about positive discrimination for example, placing more women in senior positions?
It's a difficult one but, as a woman in a senior position, I'd only want the job if I was the best candidate. Not because I lack testes.
I actually agree, but not many women would be in senior positions (including possibly yourself), without someone carving the way with some positive adjustment to counteract the older prejudices x
I think you will find it is education and re-eduction that is responsible not positive discrimination "I think I'd disagree but allow you to have your own opinion | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just think sometimes were trained to see certain things as bad or good when they're just descriptive and functional terms, they don't show the motivation behind they act, right? We're not trained to as that would be actively submitting a certain sex to unfair treatment and that is now breaking the law, we have institutions that still believe and subscribe to the notion that only a certain sex should be in control of things, usually men, when the proof shows the opposite would probably more beneficial to society. Isn't the last bit of that statement a little sexist? No, that's simply fact that the majority of institutions of which society is built, are run by and controlled my men. But women could do a better job and there's "proof"? " Simply put, look at world leaders during the pandemic for instance, the countries which have had some of the worst cases and death rates are run by men, some of the countries with the best cases and death rates are governed by women. That's simply fact. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. Is sexism always bad? Yes. Next question. How about positive discrimination for example, placing more women in senior positions?
It's a difficult one but, as a woman in a senior position, I'd only want the job if I was the best candidate. Not because I lack testes.
I actually agree, but not many women would be in senior positions (including possibly yourself), without someone carving the way with some positive adjustment to counteract the older prejudices x
I work in an organisation with a female CEO and a strong tradition of female leadership. I was appointed to my current role whilst pregnant and returned from a very brief mat leave as s newly disabled female, still breastfeeding. My employer facilitated my return by making reasonable adjustments and, five years after my appointment, I'm still working FT and doing a damn good job.
My point? Remove the obstacles that make it harder for women to ascend the career ladder, and we wouldn't need to have conversations about positive discrimination. Ditto for disabled people and other marginalised groups.
Install ramps/lifts instead of stairs
Make all toilets accessible
Engender a culture of tolerance and call out bullying language e.g homophobic language
Provide clean and quiet rooms for nursing mothers
Set reasonable expectations of hours worked
Permit hybrid or home working, where there's no reason to obstruct it
Etc."YES to every single one of these! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. Is sexism always bad? Yes. Next question. How about positive discrimination for example, placing more women in senior positions?
It's a difficult one but, as a woman in a senior position, I'd only want the job if I was the best candidate. Not because I lack testes.
I actually agree, but not many women would be in senior positions (including possibly yourself), without someone carving the way with some positive adjustment to counteract the older prejudices x
I work in an organisation with a female CEO and a strong tradition of female leadership. I was appointed to my current role whilst pregnant and returned from a very brief mat leave as s newly disabled female, still breastfeeding. My employer facilitated my return by making reasonable adjustments and, five years after my appointment, I'm still working FT and doing a damn good job.
My point? Remove the obstacles that make it harder for women to ascend the career ladder, and we wouldn't need to have conversations about positive discrimination. Ditto for disabled people and other marginalised groups.
Install ramps/lifts instead of stairs
Make all toilets accessible
Engender a culture of tolerance and call out bullying language e.g homophobic language
Provide clean and quiet rooms for nursing mothers
Set reasonable expectations of hours worked
Permit hybrid or home working, where there's no reason to obstruct it
Etc."But you're recognising there is positive discrimination? And it's one way of discriminating that's not too bad, maybe even good? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. Is sexism always bad? Yes. Next question. How about positive discrimination for example, placing more women in senior positions?
It's a difficult one but, as a woman in a senior position, I'd only want the job if I was the best candidate. Not because I lack testes.
I actually agree, but not many women would be in senior positions (including possibly yourself), without someone carving the way with some positive adjustment to counteract the older prejudices x
I think you will find it is education and re-eduction that is responsible not positive discrimination
I think I'd disagree but allow you to have your own opinion "Aren't you nice letting someone have their own opinion, as long as yours is the right one eh? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. Is sexism always bad? Yes. Next question. How about positive discrimination for example, placing more women in senior positions?
It's a difficult one but, as a woman in a senior position, I'd only want the job if I was the best candidate. Not because I lack testes.
I actually agree, but not many women would be in senior positions (including possibly yourself), without someone carving the way with some positive adjustment to counteract the older prejudices x
I think you will find it is education and re-eduction that is responsible not positive discrimination
I think I'd disagree but allow you to have your own opinion "So you don’t believe that education to remove all discrimination is making any difference? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just think sometimes were trained to see certain things as bad or good when they're just descriptive and functional terms, they don't show the motivation behind they act, right? We're not trained to as that would be actively submitting a certain sex to unfair treatment and that is now breaking the law, we have institutions that still believe and subscribe to the notion that only a certain sex should be in control of things, usually men, when the proof shows the opposite would probably more beneficial to society. Isn't the last bit of that statement a little sexist? No, that's simply fact that the majority of institutions of which society is built, are run by and controlled my men. But women could do a better job and there's "proof"? Simply put, look at world leaders during the pandemic for instance, the countries which have had some of the worst cases and death rates are run by men, some of the countries with the best cases and death rates are governed by women. That's simply fact." So you'd happily disadvantage men in favour of women then? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just think sometimes were trained to see certain things as bad or good when they're just descriptive and functional terms, they don't show the motivation behind they act, right? We're not trained to as that would be actively submitting a certain sex to unfair treatment and that is now breaking the law, we have institutions that still believe and subscribe to the notion that only a certain sex should be in control of things, usually men, when the proof shows the opposite would probably more beneficial to society. Isn't the last bit of that statement a little sexist? No, that's simply fact that the majority of institutions of which society is built, are run by and controlled my men. But women could do a better job and there's "proof"? Simply put, look at world leaders during the pandemic for instance, the countries which have had some of the worst cases and death rates are run by men, some of the countries with the best cases and death rates are governed by women. That's simply fact. So you'd happily disadvantage men in favour of women then?" At which point did I say that? You asked for examples and I gave you one which you then chose to completely ignore to further your own points on the matter. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. Is sexism always bad? Yes. Next question. How about positive discrimination for example, placing more women in senior positions?
It's a difficult one but, as a woman in a senior position, I'd only want the job if I was the best candidate. Not because I lack testes.
I actually agree, but not many women would be in senior positions (including possibly yourself), without someone carving the way with some positive adjustment to counteract the older prejudices x
I think you will find it is education and re-eduction that is responsible not positive discrimination
I think I'd disagree but allow you to have your own opinion
So you don’t believe that education to remove all discrimination is making any difference? "Depends what you mean by education? Again I think it's more positive discrimination than education. Education would be saying we're all the same and should have equal opportunity with no preference. And people are generally pretty selfish creatures - like when you go for a promotion at work for more money and status and respect, you don't usually think "hang on, is there a woman or man or certain other group who could do this job better than me" and say "give the job to them", you do your best and tell the interviewer to give you the job, right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. Is sexism always bad? Yes. Next question. How about positive discrimination for example, placing more women in senior positions?
It's a difficult one but, as a woman in a senior position, I'd only want the job if I was the best candidate. Not because I lack testes.
I actually agree, but not many women would be in senior positions (including possibly yourself), without someone carving the way with some positive adjustment to counteract the older prejudices x
I work in an organisation with a female CEO and a strong tradition of female leadership. I was appointed to my current role whilst pregnant and returned from a very brief mat leave as s newly disabled female, still breastfeeding. My employer facilitated my return by making reasonable adjustments and, five years after my appointment, I'm still working FT and doing a damn good job.
My point? Remove the obstacles that make it harder for women to ascend the career ladder, and we wouldn't need to have conversations about positive discrimination. Ditto for disabled people and other marginalised groups.
Install ramps/lifts instead of stairs
Make all toilets accessible
Engender a culture of tolerance and call out bullying language e.g homophobic language
Provide clean and quiet rooms for nursing mothers
Set reasonable expectations of hours worked
Permit hybrid or home working, where there's no reason to obstruct it
Etc.
But you're recognising there is positive discrimination? And it's one way of discriminating that's not too bad, maybe even good?"Where have I done that? I've pointed out that we wouldn't need to be TALKING about positive discrimination if obstacles to universal access to all levels of job were removed. Employers are incredibly narrow minded, as are much of a general public, which means certain groups of people are actively discriminated against when applying for jobs. Disabled people are hugely discriminated against. It's not supposed to happen, but it does. Society's expectation of me as a wheelchair user is that I'm weak and need a carer to push me about. When people find out I work FT in a management position; that I go to the gym, play sports and a host of other things, they can't get their heads around it. I'm an "inspiration"  Fuck that. I'm just getting on with my normal life - it shouldn't be "inspirational" that a woman goes to work 5 days a week and sits on her arse in a chair with wheels. But because both women and disabled people are discriminated against, it is  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just think sometimes were trained to see certain things as bad or good when they're just descriptive and functional terms, they don't show the motivation behind they act, right? We're not trained to as that would be actively submitting a certain sex to unfair treatment and that is now breaking the law, we have institutions that still believe and subscribe to the notion that only a certain sex should be in control of things, usually men, when the proof shows the opposite would probably more beneficial to society. Isn't the last bit of that statement a little sexist? No, that's simply fact that the majority of institutions of which society is built, are run by and controlled my men. But women could do a better job and there's "proof"? Simply put, look at world leaders during the pandemic for instance, the countries which have had some of the worst cases and death rates are run by men, some of the countries with the best cases and death rates are governed by women. That's simply fact. So you'd happily disadvantage men in favour of women then? At which point did I say that? You asked for examples and I gave you one which you then chose to completely ignore to further your own points on the matter." You just said that wowmn were better at handling the pandemic than men? I think at least....  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. Is sexism always bad? Yes. Next question. How about positive discrimination for example, placing more women in senior positions?
It's a difficult one but, as a woman in a senior position, I'd only want the job if I was the best candidate. Not because I lack testes.
I actually agree, but not many women would be in senior positions (including possibly yourself), without someone carving the way with some positive adjustment to counteract the older prejudices x
I think you will find it is education and re-eduction that is responsible not positive discrimination
I think I'd disagree but allow you to have your own opinion
So you don’t believe that education to remove all discrimination is making any difference?
Depends what you mean by education? Again I think it's more positive discrimination than education. Education would be saying we're all the same and should have equal opportunity with no preference. And people are generally pretty selfish creatures - like when you go for a promotion at work for more money and status and respect, you don't usually think "hang on, is there a woman or man or certain other group who could do this job better than me" and say "give the job to them", you do your best and tell the interviewer to give you the job, right?"Last time I looked we are all the same and should all be given the same opportunity for promotion. I would want to be the best candidate regardless of other peoples gender. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just think sometimes were trained to see certain things as bad or good when they're just descriptive and functional terms, they don't show the motivation behind they act, right? We're not trained to as that would be actively submitting a certain sex to unfair treatment and that is now breaking the law, we have institutions that still believe and subscribe to the notion that only a certain sex should be in control of things, usually men, when the proof shows the opposite would probably more beneficial to society. Isn't the last bit of that statement a little sexist? No, that's simply fact that the majority of institutions of which society is built, are run by and controlled my men. But women could do a better job and there's "proof"? Simply put, look at world leaders during the pandemic for instance, the countries which have had some of the worst cases and death rates are run by men, some of the countries with the best cases and death rates are governed by women. That's simply fact. So you'd happily disadvantage men in favour of women then? At which point did I say that? You asked for examples and I gave you one which you then chose to completely ignore to further your own points on the matter. You just said that wowmn were better at handling the pandemic than men? I think at least.... "But that isn't discrimination, it's simple fact. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. Is sexism always bad? Yes. Next question. How about positive discrimination for example, placing more women in senior positions?
It's a difficult one but, as a woman in a senior position, I'd only want the job if I was the best candidate. Not because I lack testes.
I actually agree, but not many women would be in senior positions (including possibly yourself), without someone carving the way with some positive adjustment to counteract the older prejudices x
I think you will find it is education and re-eduction that is responsible not positive discrimination
I think I'd disagree but allow you to have your own opinion
So you don’t believe that education to remove all discrimination is making any difference?
Depends what you mean by education? Again I think it's more positive discrimination than education. Education would be saying we're all the same and should have equal opportunity with no preference. And people are generally pretty selfish creatures - like when you go for a promotion at work for more money and status and respect, you don't usually think "hang on, is there a woman or man or certain other group who could do this job better than me" and say "give the job to them", you do your best and tell the interviewer to give you the job, right?
Last time I looked we are all the same and should all be given the same opportunity for promotion. I would want to be the best candidate regardless of other peoples gender. "I'm a union steward and tell members and management all the time that as long as it is fair for everyone, then the union is happy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. Is sexism always bad? Yes. Next question. How about positive discrimination for example, placing more women in senior positions?
It's a difficult one but, as a woman in a senior position, I'd only want the job if I was the best candidate. Not because I lack testes.
I actually agree, but not many women would be in senior positions (including possibly yourself), without someone carving the way with some positive adjustment to counteract the older prejudices x
I think you will find it is education and re-eduction that is responsible not positive discrimination
I think I'd disagree but allow you to have your own opinion
So you don’t believe that education to remove all discrimination is making any difference?
Depends what you mean by education? Again I think it's more positive discrimination than education. Education would be saying we're all the same and should have equal opportunity with no preference. And people are generally pretty selfish creatures - like when you go for a promotion at work for more money and status and respect, you don't usually think "hang on, is there a woman or man or certain other group who could do this job better than me" and say "give the job to them", you do your best and tell the interviewer to give you the job, right?
Last time I looked we are all the same and should all be given the same opportunity for promotion. I would want to be the best candidate regardless of other peoples gender. "What if you wanted the job yourself and if you didn't get it you could lose your home and your family would be homeless? Should the best person who already has £1m in the bank get it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. Is sexism always bad? Yes. Next question. How about positive discrimination for example, placing more women in senior positions?
It's a difficult one but, as a woman in a senior position, I'd only want the job if I was the best candidate. Not because I lack testes.
I actually agree, but not many women would be in senior positions (including possibly yourself), without someone carving the way with some positive adjustment to counteract the older prejudices x
I think you will find it is education and re-eduction that is responsible not positive discrimination
I think I'd disagree but allow you to have your own opinion
So you don’t believe that education to remove all discrimination is making any difference?
Depends what you mean by education? Again I think it's more positive discrimination than education. Education would be saying we're all the same and should have equal opportunity with no preference. And people are generally pretty selfish creatures - like when you go for a promotion at work for more money and status and respect, you don't usually think "hang on, is there a woman or man or certain other group who could do this job better than me" and say "give the job to them", you do your best and tell the interviewer to give you the job, right?
Last time I looked we are all the same and should all be given the same opportunity for promotion. I would want to be the best candidate regardless of other peoples gender.
I'm a union steward and tell members and management all the time that as long as it is fair for everyone, then the union is happy."And this is the point that it is fair to everyone. By promoting positive discrimination you automatically create negative discrimination | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just think sometimes were trained to see certain things as bad or good when they're just descriptive and functional terms, they don't show the motivation behind they act, right? We're not trained to as that would be actively submitting a certain sex to unfair treatment and that is now breaking the law, we have institutions that still believe and subscribe to the notion that only a certain sex should be in control of things, usually men, when the proof shows the opposite would probably more beneficial to society. Isn't the last bit of that statement a little sexist? No, that's simply fact that the majority of institutions of which society is built, are run by and controlled my men. But women could do a better job and there's "proof"? Simply put, look at world leaders during the pandemic for instance, the countries which have had some of the worst cases and death rates are run by men, some of the countries with the best cases and death rates are governed by women. That's simply fact. So you'd happily disadvantage men in favour of women then? At which point did I say that? You asked for examples and I gave you one which you then chose to completely ignore to further your own points on the matter. You just said that wowmn were better at handling the pandemic than men? I think at least....
But that isn't discrimination, it's simple fact."People are individuals though, right, so you can't discriminatw like that. Well You can I guess but it's no better than saying a certain race can run faster than another so we should have them representing us in a championship and not let the other race try out. Do you see where I'm coming from?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. Is sexism always bad? Yes. Next question. How about positive discrimination for example, placing more women in senior positions?
It's a difficult one but, as a woman in a senior position, I'd only want the job if I was the best candidate. Not because I lack testes.
I actually agree, but not many women would be in senior positions (including possibly yourself), without someone carving the way with some positive adjustment to counteract the older prejudices x
I think you will find it is education and re-eduction that is responsible not positive discrimination
I think I'd disagree but allow you to have your own opinion
So you don’t believe that education to remove all discrimination is making any difference?
Depends what you mean by education? Again I think it's more positive discrimination than education. Education would be saying we're all the same and should have equal opportunity with no preference. And people are generally pretty selfish creatures - like when you go for a promotion at work for more money and status and respect, you don't usually think "hang on, is there a woman or man or certain other group who could do this job better than me" and say "give the job to them", you do your best and tell the interviewer to give you the job, right?
Last time I looked we are all the same and should all be given the same opportunity for promotion. I would want to be the best candidate regardless of other peoples gender.
What if you wanted the job yourself and if you didn't get it you could lose your home and your family would be homeless? Should the best person who already has £1m in the bank get it?"Then that’s on me alone to be the best candidate | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. Is sexism always bad? Yes. Next question. How about positive discrimination for example, placing more women in senior positions?
It's a difficult one but, as a woman in a senior position, I'd only want the job if I was the best candidate. Not because I lack testes.
I actually agree, but not many women would be in senior positions (including possibly yourself), without someone carving the way with some positive adjustment to counteract the older prejudices x
I think you will find it is education and re-eduction that is responsible not positive discrimination
I think I'd disagree but allow you to have your own opinion
So you don’t believe that education to remove all discrimination is making any difference?
Depends what you mean by education? Again I think it's more positive discrimination than education. Education would be saying we're all the same and should have equal opportunity with no preference. And people are generally pretty selfish creatures - like when you go for a promotion at work for more money and status and respect, you don't usually think "hang on, is there a woman or man or certain other group who could do this job better than me" and say "give the job to them", you do your best and tell the interviewer to give you the job, right?
Last time I looked we are all the same and should all be given the same opportunity for promotion. I would want to be the best candidate regardless of other peoples gender.
I'm a union steward and tell members and management all the time that as long as it is fair for everyone, then the union is happy.
And this is the point that it is fair to everyone. By promoting positive discrimination you automatically create negative discrimination "I agree, but without a catalyst, how do you accelerate change? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Appointment to job roles should be purely on whether you meet the requirements of the job spec and perform best at interview. It should have nothing to do with anything else. I'm on interview panels this week and can assure you that the two items above will be my only concern. Gender etc irrelevant." I appreciate that, but it's not always the case, right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. Is sexism always bad? Yes. Next question. How about positive discrimination for example, placing more women in senior positions?
It's a difficult one but, as a woman in a senior position, I'd only want the job if I was the best candidate. Not because I lack testes.
I actually agree, but not many women would be in senior positions (including possibly yourself), without someone carving the way with some positive adjustment to counteract the older prejudices x
I think you will find it is education and re-eduction that is responsible not positive discrimination
I think I'd disagree but allow you to have your own opinion
So you don’t believe that education to remove all discrimination is making any difference?
Depends what you mean by education? Again I think it's more positive discrimination than education. Education would be saying we're all the same and should have equal opportunity with no preference. And people are generally pretty selfish creatures - like when you go for a promotion at work for more money and status and respect, you don't usually think "hang on, is there a woman or man or certain other group who could do this job better than me" and say "give the job to them", you do your best and tell the interviewer to give you the job, right?
Last time I looked we are all the same and should all be given the same opportunity for promotion. I would want to be the best candidate regardless of other peoples gender.
I'm a union steward and tell members and management all the time that as long as it is fair for everyone, then the union is happy.
And this is the point that it is fair to everyone. By promoting positive discrimination you automatically create negative discrimination
I agree, but without a catalyst, how do you accelerate change?"Through educating people that discrimination is wrong on any level and calling it out whenever is needed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. Is sexism always bad? Yes. Next question. How about positive discrimination for example, placing more women in senior positions?
It's a difficult one but, as a woman in a senior position, I'd only want the job if I was the best candidate. Not because I lack testes.
I actually agree, but not many women would be in senior positions (including possibly yourself), without someone carving the way with some positive adjustment to counteract the older prejudices x
I think you will find it is education and re-eduction that is responsible not positive discrimination
I think I'd disagree but allow you to have your own opinion
So you don’t believe that education to remove all discrimination is making any difference?
Depends what you mean by education? Again I think it's more positive discrimination than education. Education would be saying we're all the same and should have equal opportunity with no preference. And people are generally pretty selfish creatures - like when you go for a promotion at work for more money and status and respect, you don't usually think "hang on, is there a woman or man or certain other group who could do this job better than me" and say "give the job to them", you do your best and tell the interviewer to give you the job, right?
Last time I looked we are all the same and should all be given the same opportunity for promotion. I would want to be the best candidate regardless of other peoples gender.
What if you wanted the job yourself and if you didn't get it you could lose your home and your family would be homeless? Should the best person who already has £1m in the bank get it?
Then that’s on me alone to be the best candidate"But if you weren't and they offered you the job, you'd turn it down and give it to the millionaire to avoid discrimination? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Appointment to job roles should be purely on whether you meet the requirements of the job spec and perform best at interview. It should have nothing to do with anything else. I'm on interview panels this week and can assure you that the two items above will be my only concern. Gender etc irrelevant. I appreciate that, but it's not always the case, right?" No, but it should be. That's the point. The fact people are still discriminated against is ridiculous. Positive discrimination might fill quotas but it doesn't resolve the underlying issue of too many employers/recruiters having immensely narrow and prejudices ideas. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. Is sexism always bad? Yes. Next question. How about positive discrimination for example, placing more women in senior positions?
It's a difficult one but, as a woman in a senior position, I'd only want the job if I was the best candidate. Not because I lack testes.
I actually agree, but not many women would be in senior positions (including possibly yourself), without someone carving the way with some positive adjustment to counteract the older prejudices x
I think you will find it is education and re-eduction that is responsible not positive discrimination
I think I'd disagree but allow you to have your own opinion
So you don’t believe that education to remove all discrimination is making any difference?
Depends what you mean by education? Again I think it's more positive discrimination than education. Education would be saying we're all the same and should have equal opportunity with no preference. And people are generally pretty selfish creatures - like when you go for a promotion at work for more money and status and respect, you don't usually think "hang on, is there a woman or man or certain other group who could do this job better than me" and say "give the job to them", you do your best and tell the interviewer to give you the job, right?
Last time I looked we are all the same and should all be given the same opportunity for promotion. I would want to be the best candidate regardless of other peoples gender.
What if you wanted the job yourself and if you didn't get it you could lose your home and your family would be homeless? Should the best person who already has £1m in the bank get it?
Then that’s on me alone to be the best candidate
But if you weren't and they offered you the job, you'd turn it down and give it to the millionaire to avoid discrimination? "Why would they offer me a job if I wasn’t the best candidate? Also how would I ever know? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. Is sexism always bad? Yes. Next question. How about positive discrimination for example, placing more women in senior positions?
It's a difficult one but, as a woman in a senior position, I'd only want the job if I was the best candidate. Not because I lack testes.
I actually agree, but not many women would be in senior positions (including possibly yourself), without someone carving the way with some positive adjustment to counteract the older prejudices x
I think you will find it is education and re-eduction that is responsible not positive discrimination
I think I'd disagree but allow you to have your own opinion
So you don’t believe that education to remove all discrimination is making any difference?
Depends what you mean by education? Again I think it's more positive discrimination than education. Education would be saying we're all the same and should have equal opportunity with no preference. And people are generally pretty selfish creatures - like when you go for a promotion at work for more money and status and respect, you don't usually think "hang on, is there a woman or man or certain other group who could do this job better than me" and say "give the job to them", you do your best and tell the interviewer to give you the job, right?
Last time I looked we are all the same and should all be given the same opportunity for promotion. I would want to be the best candidate regardless of other peoples gender.
I'm a union steward and tell members and management all the time that as long as it is fair for everyone, then the union is happy.
And this is the point that it is fair to everyone. By promoting positive discrimination you automatically create negative discrimination
I agree, but without a catalyst, how do you accelerate change?
Through educating people that discrimination is wrong on any level and calling it out whenever is needed "This is interesting. Half the folk on fab would usually push positive discrimination down my throat. I'm torn between the two ideas, I'd ideally just like everyone to be treated equally, but when you have a panel of males appointed by males in a male dominated industry, that approach is gonna take a mighty long time, even if you can find a femal applicatant who wants to take the risk on that career path. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. Is sexism always bad? Yes. Next question. How about positive discrimination for example, placing more women in senior positions?
It's a difficult one but, as a woman in a senior position, I'd only want the job if I was the best candidate. Not because I lack testes.
I actually agree, but not many women would be in senior positions (including possibly yourself), without someone carving the way with some positive adjustment to counteract the older prejudices x
I think you will find it is education and re-eduction that is responsible not positive discrimination
I think I'd disagree but allow you to have your own opinion
So you don’t believe that education to remove all discrimination is making any difference?
Depends what you mean by education? Again I think it's more positive discrimination than education. Education would be saying we're all the same and should have equal opportunity with no preference. And people are generally pretty selfish creatures - like when you go for a promotion at work for more money and status and respect, you don't usually think "hang on, is there a woman or man or certain other group who could do this job better than me" and say "give the job to them", you do your best and tell the interviewer to give you the job, right?
Last time I looked we are all the same and should all be given the same opportunity for promotion. I would want to be the best candidate regardless of other peoples gender.
What if you wanted the job yourself and if you didn't get it you could lose your home and your family would be homeless? Should the best person who already has £1m in the bank get it?
Then that’s on me alone to be the best candidate
But if you weren't and they offered you the job, you'd turn it down and give it to the millionaire to avoid discrimination?
Why would they offer me a job if I wasn’t the best candidate? Also how would I ever know? "Possibly and exactly! So the inequality goes on..... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Xx | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. Is sexism always bad?" sexism noun prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex. Find me a positive  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. Is sexism always bad? sexism noun prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex. Find me a positive "That definition sounds a bit sexist to me  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. Is sexism always bad? sexism noun prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex. Find me a positive
That definition sounds a bit sexist to me"Im offended by your comment  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. Is sexism always bad? sexism noun prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex. Find me a positive
That definition sounds a bit sexist to me
Im offended by your comment "I fabbed your boobs, don't be | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just guilty of being a nice horny guy ... "Nothing wrong in being yourself | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. Is sexism always bad? sexism noun prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex. Find me a positive
That definition sounds a bit sexist to me
Im offended by your comment
I fabbed your boobs, don't be "Would of been offended if you had not | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist." You're sentence "If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person."? What if you're not actually offended, but just think when someone decides they're no longer what they are biologically?
Frank | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just guilty of being a nice horny guy ...
Nothing wrong in being yourself "Yup x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. You're sentence "If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person."? What if you're not actually offended, but just think when someone decides they're no longer what they are biologically?
Frank"I think you're allowed to hold that view, it'd just be unfair to hold them back because of it, right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. Is sexism always bad? sexism noun prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex. Find me a positive
That definition sounds a bit sexist to me
Im offended by your comment
I fabbed your boobs, don't be
Would of been offended if you had not "Now if you didn't specify only bi guys, I'd be right in your box! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. You're sentence "If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person."? What if you're not actually offended, but just think when someone decides they're no longer what they are biologically?
Frank"I'd ask the question "what impact does it have on you, if someone identifies as a different sex to the one assigned at birth?" If someone informs me that they identify as a man, but I've previously known them as a woman (or vice versa), then it has no impact on me at all to say "okay", and just get on with life. I don't understand why those people who are NOT transgender etc get so het up about it  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. You're sentence "If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person."? What if you're not actually offended, but just think when someone decides they're no longer what they are biologically?
Frank
I'd ask the question "what impact does it have on you, if someone identifies as a different sex to the one assigned at birth?"
If someone informs me that they identify as a man, but I've previously known them as a woman (or vice versa), then it has no impact on me at all to say "okay", and just get on with life.
I don't understand why those people who are NOT transgender etc get so het up about it "You're have the allow people to feel the way they do about it though, even if you don't understand why. As long as they're not discriminating against said people | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. You're sentence "If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person."? What if you're not actually offended, but just think when someone decides they're no longer what they are biologically?
Frank
I'd ask the question "what impact does it have on you, if someone identifies as a different sex to the one assigned at birth?"
If someone informs me that they identify as a man, but I've previously known them as a woman (or vice versa), then it has no impact on me at all to say "okay", and just get on with life.
I don't understand why those people who are NOT transgender etc get so het up about it
You're have the allow people to feel the way they do about it though, even if you don't understand why. As long as they're not discriminating against said people "In some ways I agree. I just think if you're going to get all in a stew about this particular issue, you should be able to explain why you are so het up. So far, no-one has been able to explain why another person's gender identity is so concerning to them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I fuck, therefore I am.. simples x" Do you think having a sexuality is discriminating against the type of people who you don't want to have sex with based in their gender or sexuality? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. You're sentence "If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person."? What if you're not actually offended, but just think when someone decides they're no longer what they are biologically?
Frank
I think you're allowed to hold that view, it'd just be unfair to hold them back because of it, right? "Agreed, Bob | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I fuck, therefore I am.. simples x Do you think having a sexuality is discriminating against the type of people who you don't want to have sex with based in their gender or sexuality?" What does that even mean ffs? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. You're sentence "If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person."? What if you're not actually offended, but just think when someone decides they're no longer what they are biologically?
Frank
I'd ask the question "what impact does it have on you, if someone identifies as a different sex to the one assigned at birth?"
If someone informs me that they identify as a man, but I've previously known them as a woman (or vice versa), then it has no impact on me at all to say "okay", and just get on with life.
I don't understand why those people who are NOT transgender etc get so het up about it
You're have the allow people to feel the way they do about it though, even if you don't understand why. As long as they're not discriminating against said people
In some ways I agree. I just think if you're going to get all in a stew about this particular issue, you should be able to explain why you are so het up. So far, no-one has been able to explain why another person's gender identity is so concerning to them."Gut reactions can be difficult to explain, and some aren't as capable with words too. When we try to control what people actually think it's a slippery slope. As long as they're not harming anyone, let them think and think a bit more. This approach creates equal opportunity and harmony, right? Why make anyone feel bad because of what they think or can't explain? Like if you said, "Steve you can't explain why you feel straight today why you don't fancy men therefore you must be a bad person" then it's just creating unnecessary tension and division imo | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I fuck, therefore I am.. simples x Do you think having a sexuality is discriminating against the type of people who you don't want to have sex with based in their gender or sexuality? What does that even mean ffs?" I means, I hope you're having fun on fab. Be free and enjoy yourself fella! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I fuck, therefore I am.. simples x Do you think having a sexuality is discriminating against the type of people who you don't want to have sex with based in their gender or sexuality? What does that even mean ffs? I means, I hope you're having fun on fab. Be free and enjoy yourself fella! "Thanks, will do | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being sexist is putting someone down because of the sex they are. If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person. So no, someone's sexuality isn't sexist. You're sentence "If you're offended by the sex someone chooses to be then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else as a person."? What if you're not actually offended, but just think when someone decides they're no longer what they are biologically?
Frank
I'd ask the question "what impact does it have on you, if someone identifies as a different sex to the one assigned at birth?"
If someone informs me that they identify as a man, but I've previously known them as a woman (or vice versa), then it has no impact on me at all to say "okay", and just get on with life.
I don't understand why those people who are NOT transgender etc get so het up about it "It has no impact on me whatsoever, but, why must you get so het up just because someone raises their eyebrows? Are we not allowed thoughts that don't correspond with yours? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you raise your eyebrows at someone's decision to be a certain sex, or gender for that matter then in effect you ARE taking offence at it. Someone else's decision to be who THEY want to be shouldn't incite any reaction at all apart from acceptance and understanding." That's your opinion, yes, and I respect it, but it's not a very tolerant one imo. Live and let live across the board, surely fella? People are allowed personal views, even ones you might personally think are abhorrent, surely, as long as they don't purposely harm others? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you raise your eyebrows at someone's decision to be a certain sex, or gender for that matter then in effect you ARE taking offence at it. Someone else's decision to be who THEY want to be shouldn't incite any reaction at all apart from acceptance and understanding. That's your opinion, yes, and I respect it, but it's not a very tolerant one imo. Live and let live across the board, surely fella? People are allowed personal views, even ones you might personally think are abhorrent, surely, as long as they don't purposely harm others? "Freedom of speech is not the same as having the right to make others feel belittled and less a part of society. Are you saying racists should be allowed to be racist and not challenged then? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you raise your eyebrows at someone's decision to be a certain sex, or gender for that matter then in effect you ARE taking offence at it. Someone else's decision to be who THEY want to be shouldn't incite any reaction at all apart from acceptance and understanding. That's your opinion, yes, and I respect it, but it's not a very tolerant one imo. Live and let live across the board, surely fella? People are allowed personal views, even ones you might personally think are abhorrent, surely, as long as they don't purposely harm others?
Freedom of speech is not the same as having the right to make others feel belittled and less a part of society.
Are you saying racists should be allowed to be racist and not challenged then?"I'm saying some bloke up there said he rolled his eyes in his own mind/home. And imo it would help to be able to tolerate that if he's not hurting anyone or holding them back rather than trying to change his thoughts. Who knows what the right thoughts are if someone is in charge of them? Do we have a thought general election and control them "democratically"? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you raise your eyebrows at someone's decision to be a certain sex, or gender for that matter then in effect you ARE taking offence at it. Someone else's decision to be who THEY want to be shouldn't incite any reaction at all apart from acceptance and understanding. That's your opinion, yes, and I respect it, but it's not a very tolerant one imo. Live and let live across the board, surely fella? People are allowed personal views, even ones you might personally think are abhorrent, surely, as long as they don't purposely harm others?
Freedom of speech is not the same as having the right to make others feel belittled and less a part of society.
Are you saying racists should be allowed to be racist and not challenged then?"I can see that you mean well | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you raise your eyebrows at someone's decision to be a certain sex, or gender for that matter then in effect you ARE taking offence at it. Someone else's decision to be who THEY want to be shouldn't incite any reaction at all apart from acceptance and understanding. That's your opinion, yes, and I respect it, but it's not a very tolerant one imo. Live and let live across the board, surely fella? People are allowed personal views, even ones you might personally think are abhorrent, surely, as long as they don't purposely harm others?
Freedom of speech is not the same as having the right to make others feel belittled and less a part of society.
Are you saying racists should be allowed to be racist and not challenged then?
I can see that you mean well "You've made very little salient points during this, whether you're trying to provoke a particular reaction and not liking the points made back to you or not I'm not entirely sure but you seem to want someone to completely agree with what you've said so you feel validated in yourself. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you raise your eyebrows at someone's decision to be a certain sex, or gender for that matter then in effect you ARE taking offence at it. Someone else's decision to be who THEY want to be shouldn't incite any reaction at all apart from acceptance and understanding. That's your opinion, yes, and I respect it, but it's not a very tolerant one imo. Live and let live across the board, surely fella? People are allowed personal views, even ones you might personally think are abhorrent, surely, as long as they don't purposely harm others?
Freedom of speech is not the same as having the right to make others feel belittled and less a part of society.
Are you saying racists should be allowed to be racist and not challenged then?
I can see that you mean well
You've made very little salient points during this, whether you're trying to provoke a particular reaction and not liking the points made back to you or not I'm not entirely sure but you seem to want someone to completely agree with what you've said so you feel validated in yourself."Thanks for contributing and at least trying to follow and understand the thread I guess? Are you sure you're not sure, or are you just casting ungrounded assumptions, and if your assumptions were true then shouldn't you know better than to bite? How on earth would you even start to know what I want without first asking me? I'll clarify - I wanted what the thread title asked, but some folk seemed keener to try to prove some knowledge of an entirely different topic, which I guess is their privilege. Never guess, always ask fella | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you raise your eyebrows at someone's decision to be a certain sex, or gender for that matter then in effect you ARE taking offence at it. Someone else's decision to be who THEY want to be shouldn't incite any reaction at all apart from acceptance and understanding." Your definition of what someone finds offensive must differ wildly to mine. I said I did not take offence, yet you're insisting I do. It's as if you know my mind better than me . And why can't I react to something I find odd? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you raise your eyebrows at someone's decision to be a certain sex, or gender for that matter then in effect you ARE taking offence at it. Someone else's decision to be who THEY want to be shouldn't incite any reaction at all apart from acceptance and understanding. That's your opinion, yes, and I respect it, but it's not a very tolerant one imo. Live and let live across the board, surely fella? People are allowed personal views, even ones you might personally think are abhorrent, surely, as long as they don't purposely harm others? "The problem is that the personal views often play themselves out via conscious or un-conscious bias. We discussed job interviews last night and there's a classic example of how someone's private eye-rolling can harm the ability of another person to progress in a career. If you are transgender and are interviewed for a job by someone who inwardly does not agree with or has other issues with transgender people, then it's highly likely that the transgender person will not get the job. These conscious and un-conscious biases about different groups of people (women/mothers, transgender people, disabled people etc) are exactly why we don't have universal equality. We have people in charge of recruitment who think all mothers will be constantly late; think trans people are "weird"; assume a person in a wheelchair can't work FT or do XYZ task etc. So, instead of rolling our eyes and inwardly making assumptions, we as people should be challenging ourselves to ask WHY we are perturbed [insert suitable alternative word] and try to address our biases. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you raise your eyebrows at someone's decision to be a certain sex, or gender for that matter then in effect you ARE taking offence at it. Someone else's decision to be who THEY want to be shouldn't incite any reaction at all apart from acceptance and understanding. That's your opinion, yes, and I respect it, but it's not a very tolerant one imo. Live and let live across the board, surely fella? People are allowed personal views, even ones you might personally think are abhorrent, surely, as long as they don't purposely harm others?
The problem is that the personal views often play themselves out via conscious or un-conscious bias. We discussed job interviews last night and there's a classic example of how someone's private eye-rolling can harm the ability of another person to progress in a career. If you are transgender and are interviewed for a job by someone who inwardly does not agree with or has other issues with transgender people, then it's highly likely that the transgender person will not get the job. These conscious and un-conscious biases about different groups of people (women/mothers, transgender people, disabled people etc) are exactly why we don't have universal equality. We have people in charge of recruitment who think all mothers will be constantly late; think trans people are "weird"; assume a person in a wheelchair can't work FT or do XYZ task etc.
So, instead of rolling our eyes and inwardly making assumptions, we as people should be challenging ourselves to ask WHY we are perturbed [insert suitable alternative word] and try to address our biases. "That's one opinion, yes
I think it's fine for any human to feel discomfort or unease towards another without the need to justify or explain it or to be "converted" to "normality". That's my idea if true tolerance, where ALL people are respected as best they can be. It's not far from my thoughts on sexual preference where people fancy who they do and don't need to explain it. Try as you might You won't always convince everyone to hold the same values or opinions as yourself and wouldn't the world be dull if they did. And who's to say what's right anyway? x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you raise your eyebrows at someone's decision to be a certain sex, or gender for that matter then in effect you ARE taking offence at it. Someone else's decision to be who THEY want to be shouldn't incite any reaction at all apart from acceptance and understanding. That's your opinion, yes, and I respect it, but it's not a very tolerant one imo. Live and let live across the board, surely fella? People are allowed personal views, even ones you might personally think are abhorrent, surely, as long as they don't purposely harm others?
The problem is that the personal views often play themselves out via conscious or un-conscious bias. We discussed job interviews last night and there's a classic example of how someone's private eye-rolling can harm the ability of another person to progress in a career. If you are transgender and are interviewed for a job by someone who inwardly does not agree with or has other issues with transgender people, then it's highly likely that the transgender person will not get the job. These conscious and un-conscious biases about different groups of people (women/mothers, transgender people, disabled people etc) are exactly why we don't have universal equality. We have people in charge of recruitment who think all mothers will be constantly late; think trans people are "weird"; assume a person in a wheelchair can't work FT or do XYZ task etc.
So, instead of rolling our eyes and inwardly making assumptions, we as people should be challenging ourselves to ask WHY we are perturbed [insert suitable alternative word] and try to address our biases.
That's one opinion, yes
I think it's fine for any human to feel discomfort or unease towards another without the need to justify or explain it or to be "converted" to "normality". That's my idea if true tolerance, where ALL people are respected as best they can be. It's not far from my thoughts on sexual preference where people fancy who they do and don't need to explain it. Try as you might You won't always convince everyone to hold the same values or opinions as yourself and wouldn't the world be dull if they did. And who's to say what's right anyway? x"Thank you, Bob. I'd started a response to Kinky Couple 3 times and each time I deleted as I thought, as argumentative as I am at times, I just want to chill on my 3 days off work. You put that rather eloquently
Frank | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you raise your eyebrows at someone's decision to be a certain sex, or gender for that matter then in effect you ARE taking offence at it. Someone else's decision to be who THEY want to be shouldn't incite any reaction at all apart from acceptance and understanding. That's your opinion, yes, and I respect it, but it's not a very tolerant one imo. Live and let live across the board, surely fella? People are allowed personal views, even ones you might personally think are abhorrent, surely, as long as they don't purposely harm others?
The problem is that the personal views often play themselves out via conscious or un-conscious bias. We discussed job interviews last night and there's a classic example of how someone's private eye-rolling can harm the ability of another person to progress in a career. If you are transgender and are interviewed for a job by someone who inwardly does not agree with or has other issues with transgender people, then it's highly likely that the transgender person will not get the job. These conscious and un-conscious biases about different groups of people (women/mothers, transgender people, disabled people etc) are exactly why we don't have universal equality. We have people in charge of recruitment who think all mothers will be constantly late; think trans people are "weird"; assume a person in a wheelchair can't work FT or do XYZ task etc.
So, instead of rolling our eyes and inwardly making assumptions, we as people should be challenging ourselves to ask WHY we are perturbed [insert suitable alternative word] and try to address our biases.
That's one opinion, yes
I think it's fine for any human to feel discomfort or unease towards another without the need to justify or explain it or to be "converted" to "normality". That's my idea if true tolerance, where ALL people are respected as best they can be. It's not far from my thoughts on sexual preference where people fancy who they do and don't need to explain it. Try as you might You won't always convince everyone to hold the same values or opinions as yourself and wouldn't the world be dull if they did. And who's to say what's right anyway? x
Thank you, Bob. I'd started a response to Kinky Couple 3 times and each time I deleted as I thought, as argumentative as I am at times, I just want to chill on my 3 days off work. You put that rather eloquently
Frank"Oh, just to clarify for Kinky Couple's sake, I feel no discomfort or unease towards transgender folk, and I've had my un-conscious bias training  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you raise your eyebrows at someone's decision to be a certain sex, or gender for that matter then in effect you ARE taking offence at it. Someone else's decision to be who THEY want to be shouldn't incite any reaction at all apart from acceptance and understanding. That's your opinion, yes, and I respect it, but it's not a very tolerant one imo. Live and let live across the board, surely fella? People are allowed personal views, even ones you might personally think are abhorrent, surely, as long as they don't purposely harm others?
The problem is that the personal views often play themselves out via conscious or un-conscious bias. We discussed job interviews last night and there's a classic example of how someone's private eye-rolling can harm the ability of another person to progress in a career. If you are transgender and are interviewed for a job by someone who inwardly does not agree with or has other issues with transgender people, then it's highly likely that the transgender person will not get the job. These conscious and un-conscious biases about different groups of people (women/mothers, transgender people, disabled people etc) are exactly why we don't have universal equality. We have people in charge of recruitment who think all mothers will be constantly late; think trans people are "weird"; assume a person in a wheelchair can't work FT or do XYZ task etc.
So, instead of rolling our eyes and inwardly making assumptions, we as people should be challenging ourselves to ask WHY we are perturbed [insert suitable alternative word] and try to address our biases.
That's one opinion, yes
I think it's fine for any human to feel discomfort or unease towards another without the need to justify or explain it or to be "converted" to "normality". That's my idea if true tolerance, where ALL people are respected as best they can be. It's not far from my thoughts on sexual preference where people fancy who they do and don't need to explain it. Try as you might You won't always convince everyone to hold the same values or opinions as yourself and wouldn't the world be dull if they did. And who's to say what's right anyway? x
Thank you, Bob. I'd started a response to Kinky Couple 3 times and each time I deleted as I thought, as argumentative as I am at times, I just want to chill on my 3 days off work. You put that rather eloquently
Frank
Oh, just to clarify for Kinky Couple's sake, I feel no discomfort or unease towards transgender folk, and I've had my un-c*nscious bias training "Was it any use? (Having done a few, I'm a little cynical of its value. Even if unc*nscious bias exists (from my limited reading the jury is out) then I didn't get much to help offset it. PS my unc*nscious bias is the halo effect rather than race or gender, at least based on the keyboard test I've done) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh, just to clarify for Kinky Couple's sake, I feel no discomfort or unease towards transgender folk, and I've had my un-c*nscious bias training
Was it any use?
(Having done a few, I'm a little cynical of its value. Even if unc*nscious bias exists (from my limited reading the jury is out) then I didn't get much to help offset it.
PS my unc*nscious bias is the halo effect rather than race or gender, at least based on the keyboard test I've done)"Oh I've no doubt it exists, I see it all the time at my place of work, but, not in the way you'd think. Do I think it was of any use to me? Some interesting points but overall, not really. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
