Mollyycolllinss Categories Society
The Equal opportunities section of your job application mentions the Equality Act 2010 four times and lists sex as a protected characteristic twice.
However...
1/11
However, you then ask for the 'gender' of the applicant with options:
Male
Female.
2/11
'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
3/11
Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology.
https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF
'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.
4/11
Asking about a personal characteristic such as 'gender' that is not a protected characteristic under the Act, may be in breach of the GDPR by processing personal - and potentially Special Category - data without a lawful basis.
5/11
The Equal Ops Monitoring section in your job application asks for the 'Sex (Gender)' of the applicant with options:
Male
Female.
1/12
'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
2/12
Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology.
https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF
'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.
3/12
You also ask about 'transgender'.
'Transgender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
4/12
There is a protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment', but the term 'transgender' is not used or defined in the Act.
https://t.co/2o53ufahzA
5/12
The Equal Opportunities Monitoring section in your job applications has 'gender' in what appears to be a list of protected characteristics under Equality Act 2010.
1/13
'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
2/13
Sex is the protected characteristic under the Act, but that is not on your list.
'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.
3/13
You then ask for the 'gender' of the applicant with options:
Female
Male.
4/13
Again, 'gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
5/13
'I do not accept that male violence is a thing.'
https://t.co/79KG1w83OB
Stephen Whittle.
'I consider female people having any spaces or services to themselves, or being able to stipulate intimate care from people of their own sex, to be a legal abhorrence.'
https://t.co/MO9NVW3XpK
'Stonewall considers allowing ppl access to the spaces and services of the other sex on the basis of nothing but self declaration regardless of the obvious ways this can be abused and the evidence that it already has been to be sensible.'
https://t.co/QWsEayzeXd
'We still don't understand the law'
'Yeah, we really don't understand the law.'
The Equal Opportunities Monitoring in your job application asks for the 'gender' of the applicant and says "Please select either male or female based on your legal gender"...
1/16
...with options:
Female
Male.
'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
The term 'legal gender' is not used in the Act or defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
2/16
Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology, but you don't ask for that.
https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF
'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.
3/16
You then ask for the 'gender identity' of the applicant, saying "Gender identity is how you would describe your own gender; this could differ from your legal gender." with the same options of:
Female
Male.
4/16
'Gender identity' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
The term 'legal gender' is not used in the Act or defined in the
Broadly
1/The "base" level of the mob reacting out of what they believe & has been taught & insinuated into them for years.
I think this chaos is the cover for
More details emerge. The goal of the January 6 terrorist attack was, in the screams of its perpetrators, to kill American elected officials.
— Eric Garland (@ericgarland) January 11, 2021
Prosecute every last co-conspirator. https://t.co/G2my10KdOM
other levels that seem to have a much more clear, "calm" mission.
These are the people who are now utterly confused that what they were told turns out to not be true.
These people being disbarred from flying, or taken into custody, thinking they were just returning home, are
bearing the brunt of the response by the law enforcement system. They are the easiest to see, find, and catch.
They are the pawns. They are the Orcs in the Trumpian system...expendable. Useful. Necessary. But Expendable as the strategy & tactics require.
Who knows if these
people, so adamant in their emotional pumped up outrage will figure this out. For now, the fact that they are the ones being hauled in, the first ones facing the consequences of their actions, seems to be solidifying their martyr frame of mind. I suspect they feel a kinship
with Trump, who does nothing but proclaim himself a victim and a martyr. In this they get to feel even moreso that they are part of the righteous army, gods army, doing gods work.
And they will be used again and again as necessary for the other levels.
A new study found that giving low-income workers money upfront in their work period helped alleviate the mental burden of their financial problems and allowed them to be more productive \u2014 echoing other findings on the psychological impacts of poverty.https://t.co/zdxItTLDLZ
— NPR (@NPR) February 3, 2021
“Giving money to people in poverty solves poverty” is an obvious truth, which needs (another) study for proof, for the same reason that this finding will be ignored (again).
We don’t want to fix poverty, even if doing so helps everyone—not if it means life for the “undeserving.”
It’s not about saving money.
There's a great fear in this country that a single dollar might go to someone who might not deserve it; or that a single given dollar might be spent on something we deem unworthy.
We'll spend five dollars to prevent the waste of that one dollar.
The manifestations are everywhere. From the overt, gleefully cruel hostility of conservatism toward people in poverty, of course. But also hidden in almost everyone's assumptions.
Our use of charity as a way of controlling who gets helped, for example.
Charity isn't primarily an act.
— A.R. Moxon (@JuliusGoat) November 10, 2019
Before the act comes an alignment.
Charity is the natural fruit of a deep alignment with the virtue of generosity.
It sure shouldn't be a delivery mechanism for one's own beliefs about worthiness.
Even the reversal—a desire to prevent aid from going to "undeserving" wealthy who don't need it (true)—leads us to create obstacles to aid people in poverty often can't overcome, but wealthy people can.
Which is why wealthy people like means
Whenever someone proposes a means-testing solution, it's an indication they've internalized the lie, foundational to the United States, that some people deserve life and others don't.
— A.R. Moxon (@JuliusGoat) December 18, 2020
It's an expensive lie.