Should we assume therefore that all gay people are like this? No. I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt rather that judging them before I've even met them. And that, I think, is the crux of the matter. Judge everyone on their own merit.
Absolutely, we should not judge the whole on the actions of a few, but gender identity (which these labels relate to) is nothing to do with sexuality. Claiming to be gender neutral says nothing about whether this person is gay/straight/bi.
It's well established that homosexuality is, like being truly transgendered, a biological facet of the individual. A facet they have no control over. Therefore to discriminate against them for being gay or truly transgendered would be wrong.
As an individual, I don't really care what people get up to in the bedroom and who they choose to get up to it with. As a potential employer I care about it even less, it's none of my business as realistically, that aspect of a person should have little to no impact on my business and therefore I wouldn't expect to see a statement on someones CV to the effect of "Sexuality: Gay". If I did I'd probably think "agenda" and file the CV in the bin.
But we aren't talking about biology here, we're talking about arbitrary labels that people can assign to themselves on a whim, by themselves with no guidance or say so from a medical professional qualified to make that judgement... labels that, due to the politically correct agenda of mainstream media and politicians, grant those individuals protection that they would not ordinarily be afforded. Protection that could have an impact on me and my business.
So, as with sexuality, someone's gender identity is of no interest to me as an employer as it should not impact the business in anyway (with one exception... if that person is public facing where how they present could impact the business in a negative way). The fact they've put this on their CV suggests they have an agenda and unfortunately, asking about it at interview and then rejecting their application puts you in an awkward position, so in my opinion the most sensible thing to do is reject the application before it gets to that stage.
The human mind is a complex thing. Who can say this persons feelings about themselves, has been influenced by society/media. It just could be the way they feel, who are we to say otherwise. The way we conceive things changes over time, we evolve.
Absolutely, and I think that's a very important point... being gender neutral is in the mind, it's an expression of character, or personality, of being who you want to be. It's not a characteristic of one's biology like sex or sexuality.
Just over 60 years ago a guy committed suicide after being found guilty of gross indecency in private. Homosexuality was decriminalised some ten years later in the UK, in 1967. Societies attitudes towards homosexuality have change completely in recent years, which was seen as an illness, that could be cured. What should are attitudes to gender neutral peoples be like?
If there was any medical evidence to suggest it is anything more than arbitrary self assigned labels, then I would treat them in the same way as I treat everyone else. Unfortunately, the first instances of these terms appear to stem from certain social media platforms not medical journals and as yet I don't believe there is any medical evidence to back them up.
If you've never seen the full list of 57 genders (or whatever it is), check it out (
Genderfluid Support - http://genderfluidsupport.tumblr.com/gender) and then tell me this isn't just a stupid fad.
As for employing such a person as in the OP, which staff toilets wolt it use, or would you have to build a gender neutral set of bogs for it?
Whilst it may seem far fetched, this could be an issue and I see a number of possible ways this would play out. In most cases, I could see a strong case for "No, don't be bloody daft" but under a certain set of conditions I could see a strong case for "Yes, you will build them their own toilet or face the wrath of anti-discrimination laws", and those conditions begin with the fact they've stated this on their CV, because it was there at the point of hiring, they haven't hidden the fact and therefore they can claim you as an employer were aware of their needs/rights when you hired them.
Some are suggesting this person should not be considered for an interview, just because he or she is gender neutral. You can dress that up as much as you want, but that is discrimination.
I'm suggesting I personally wouldn't consider them for interview because by making a thing out of it and explicitly stating it on their CV it makes me think they have a politically correct agenda that would result in trouble for me. And yes, that is me using discrimination to make what I believe would be the right choice for my business, as is my right as a potential employer.
I suppose that's okay until you suffer at the hands of discrimination.
Being gingered haired and having freckles, doesn't fit snuggle within the 9 protected characteristics of the Equality Act, but a carrot top would feel a bit pee'd he did not get the job 'cos he's a ginge.
Again, as with sexuality, having ginger hair and/or freckles is biology and I would agree, discriminating on the basis of looks is wrong, except if those looks will be public facing... then I should have the right to choose who will represent my company. My business model might rely on all public facing staff having blonde hair, or I might not want a tattooed youth with 15" wheel rims stuck through his ear lobes to be the first person someone sees when they walk into the reception area of my office. That's my choice, it's my brand... unfortunately if you make that kind of decision, you run the risk of being had for discriminating which is plainly wrong.
Well said, but as we see again and again its the minority that seems to control the majority.
Yes, it is, because they are the most vocal and cause the most trouble, and also because anyone that speaks out against their agenda is branded as a hater, sometimes being publicly doxed, abused and shamed for daring to have a different opinion to these people.
It's the same sort of situation that exists in the UK with regards to say the Muslim rape gangs (amongst other things). People dare not speak out because they fear the consequences.
I don't have an issue with anyone if they're not adversely affecting me. Live and let live my friend.
I totally agree, people can do and be whatever they want to be... on their time, but at work they should be prepared to conform to societal standards and rules and those of the company, but I think this is part of the problem... we're breeding a generation of people who want their own way all of the time and therefore they believe they should be allowed to dress and behave however they want, whenever they want... and the kicker is, laws are changing and it is becoming increasingly difficult for employers to ignore what 10 years ago would have been considered unreasonable staff demands.
By using these labels, which have hijacked the term transgendered, these people can claim you're discriminating against them on the basis they are "transgendered" (personally I prefer the term I've seen used on-line quite a bit - transtrender) which is a protected status in most Western equality legislation and hey presto they have you over a barrel. Which is why if sexuality and/or gender identity is important enough to make it onto a CV, I think agenda, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and well... I'm not willing to take that risk.
