‘Male’ and ‘female’ plugs and connectors – gendered language

[Zero999]

I had to do some of these courses recently, on DEI, harassment, bullying etc.  Just new HR policy, nothing particular triggered it.  They are really not that bad.  Basically, it is just making sure employees know what the law is (in the UK, this kind of thing goes back to the Equality Act 2010) and employers can be legally held liable for employee's actions, so it is on the employer to get this right.

Good for you, but that does not reflect everyone's experience. If they had just stuck to the law (even though I think the Equalities Act is terrible and is in need of reform, but that's a different topic) then it wouldn't be so bad.

There is nothing particularly controversial.  They don't even talk about preferred pronouns.  It is just a case of treating other people with respect.  The one thing I learned from the course which I did not know before was that the difference between harassment and bullying was that harassment involves a characteristic (gender, ethnicity, etc.) and bullying doesn't.  Other than that it is just common sense.  Did the courses in about 30 mins during a quiet time of the day, it's all online.

Anyone getting upset over this really needs to have some perspective and realise not everyone is a straight white male and having a little bit of understanding and appreciation for other people is only a good thing.

The course I did about 5 years ago basically said that only white people can be racist.

Oh and the law defines harassment as repeated hostile conduct/communications, nothing to do with gender or ethnicity, although they can be aggravating factors.

By the way UK law does not allow positive discrimination.  If a candidate is scored objectively higher, even if they are in that "boring" category of "straight white male" you must select them over another candidate even if they are from an underrepresented background.  There is some small exception for internships but that is all.

It does though, albeit indirectly. If there's a perceived underrepresentation of a certain demographic, then it's fine to advertise jobs in a certain way that it means said demographic is more likely to apply. Technically an organisation can't refuse someone a job because they are a straight white male, but it does happen in reality.

DEI is abusive to the very people it claims to help, such as that vulnerable young man who was given a job at a prestigious university because he was from am underrepresented demographic, even though he plagiarised most of his work. Unfortunately it didn't end well when he was found out.

[Cyclotron]

I had to do some of these courses recently, on DEI, harassment, bullying etc.  Just new HR policy, nothing particular triggered it.  They are really not that bad.  Basically, it is just making sure employees know what the law is (in the UK, this kind of thing goes back to the Equality Act 2010) and employers can be legally held liable for employee's actions, so it is on the employer to get this right.

Your training may well be aligned to the law in the UK. In the US, DEI policies and training were found to be unconstitutional and illegal. They can't create discriminatory practices in hiring and selection or in DEI training. Exactly the anti-discrimination common sense would tell people to practice.

SCOTUS findings didn't ban DEI, as some may think. It did allow reverse-discrimination lawsuits to continue, and the payouts from those suits have drastically changed the minds of HR people who are supposed to keep their companies from paying such fines and lawsuits.

SCOTUS did and does find that using protected characteristics for hiring quotas, tiebreaks, or exclusive advancement and advantage is unlawful. Again, as common sense would have predicted.

There is nothing particularly controversial.  They don't even talk about preferred pronouns.  It is just a case of treating other people with respect.  The one thing I learned from the course which I did not know before was that the difference between harassment and bullying was that harassment involves a characteristic (gender, ethnicity, etc.) and bullying doesn't.  Other than that it is just common sense.  Did the courses in about 30 mins during a quiet time of the day, it's all online.

Anyone getting upset over this really needs to have some perspective and realise not everyone is a straight white male and having a little bit of understanding and appreciation for other people is only a good thing.

Landing with this generalization that "Anyone getting upset over" indicates the training wasn't exactly successful, now was it?
You just attacked a group exactly as your training told you not to, or it should have. Do you not see this?

By the way UK law does not allow positive discrimination.  If a candidate is scored objectively higher, even if they are in that "boring" category of "straight white male" you must select them over another candidate even if they are from an underrepresented background.  There is a small exception for internship but that is all.

The US Law forbids all discrimination in all cases, and that's the only correct way to do it. People are equal, genders are equal, what you do in your bedroom is equal, and none of anyone's business, especially those selecting candidates for hire, school, or whatever.  We've rolled back decades of teaching of equality by allowing discrimination.

As I pointed out, your training appears to have failed. You don't respect everyone's views and opinions equally in your comments. I know this isn't your work environment but this is illustrative of the actual core problem. And to top it off, you are actively accusing a group of doing what you're doing.

DIE training's problem
A) It fails; people will continue their biases, bigotry, and racism.
B) It has been found that practices derived from it are unlawful and directly expose companies to loss
C) Teaching people discrimination is not a good thing

I believe it is perfectly reasonable to train staff on how their actions expose the company to losses. At least in the US, HR teams have had to rewrite those trainings to roll back a lot of things they encouraged and practiced.  This is why common sense and not the latest fad in politics or elsewhere should guide these orgs.

[tom66]

There is nothing particularly controversial.  They don't even talk about preferred pronouns.  It is just a case of treating other people with respect.  The one thing I learned from the course which I did not know before was that the difference between harassment and bullying was that harassment involves a characteristic (gender, ethnicity, etc.) and bullying doesn't.  Other than that it is just common sense.  Did the courses in about 30 mins during a quiet time of the day, it's all online.

Anyone getting upset over this really needs to have some perspective and realise not everyone is a straight white male and having a little bit of understanding and appreciation for other people is only a good thing.

Landing with this generalization that "Anyone getting upset over" indicates the training wasn't exactly successful, now was it?
You just attacked a group exactly as your training told you not to, or it should have. Do you not see this?

No. 

I think a straight white male like myself can safely make a joke about a straight white male being very common in engineering.

In any case, this is not my workplace and I can post almost anything within reason online.  I only have to behave myself when at work, or dealing with customers from work. I wouldn't make a joke like that in front of anyone from work, as it's not acceptable in a professional environment.

By the way UK law does not allow positive discrimination.  If a candidate is scored objectively higher, even if they are in that "boring" category of "straight white male" you must select them over another candidate even if they are from an underrepresented background.  There is a small exception for internship but that is all.

The US Law forbids all discrimination in all cases, and that's the only correct way to do it. People are equal, genders are equal, what you do in your bedroom is equal, and none of anyone's business, especially those selecting candidates for hire, school, or whatever.  We've rolled back decades of teaching of equality by allowing discrimination.

Exactly the same is true for the UK and I would not want anything less to be true.  And my example is to say just that: you cannot discriminate over protected characteristics, even if those would be seen as being in under-represented groups. 

As I pointed out, your training appears to have failed. You don't respect everyone's views and opinions equally in your comments. I know this isn't your work environment but this is illustrative of the actual core problem. And to top it off, you are actively accusing a group of doing what you're doing.

LOL, okay, yeah.  It is not my job to respect everyone's opinion equally because opinions are not equal, they are opinions.  Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, the UK and the US both have the concept of free speech, and I am not censoring yours am I? But I am also allowed to not agree with you or post a counterpoint. And I am not actively accusing anyone of anything - where was my accusation?

DIE training's problem
A) It fails; people will continue their biases, bigotry, and racism.
B) It has been found that practices derived from it are unlawful and directly expose companies to loss
C) Teaching people discrimination is not a good thing

(A) Maybe, depends on the course.  It won't make a racist person automatically not racist.  It might make someone who thought making racist jokes in the canteen was OK change their mind.  Just because "José from accounts" never complained, doesn't mean that he didn't find it offensive and it make the work environment a little more toxic for him.

(B) Depends on the practices.  DEI is such a wide term.  If you mean hiring on the basis of positive discrimination, I agree, in most countries that is illegal and I would go as far to say it is immoral and we should not be doing it.  But having the concept of diversity, equity and inclusion in an organisation is not wrong provided it is more about understanding.

C) Agreed but that is not the objective of most workplace courses.  The recommended standard in the UK is the ACAS course and you can go and look at the slides online, it's basically just "be mindful of what you say" and "this is what harrassment and bullying are".  It is not "Mohammed is from an underrepresented group and scored poorly, you must hire him because you have 3% fewer Muslims than you should."

[asmi]

Well perhaps the world would all be a little better if we did care about other people a bit more.

For the record - I don't have a problem with people of all stripes and beliefs as long as they leave me alone just like I leave them alone. As a matter of fact, most of my current colleagues are not white straight males, and there are some who I suspect belong to "disadvantaged" groups, but since none of them put their habits and beliefs on a flag and waves it into my face, I have no problems with any of them. Live and let live. I don't want to know what you do in your bedroom and I'm not going to volunteer such details about my own life to anybody.
As my current responsibilities include interviewing potential new hires and make hiring decisions, I go an extra mile to make sure nobody can accuse me of a bias - even though like everyone else I do have biases, but at least I'm aware of them and do my very best to remove subjectivity from my decisions by having a formalized decision tree based on objective facts and not my opinions.

[dcrookston]

Nobody is becoming transgender because it’s trendy

I'm sorry, sir, and with respect -- have you ever met a teenager?  Especially a teenage girl?  They would absolutely put themselves through abject misery if they thought it would help them gain some popularity.  Bonus points if it gives them something they can wield against their parents (especially if their parents are conservative) and the parents "have to" accept it or risk being labeled transphobes.

Teenagers CRAVE control.  Teenagers whose parents are controlling want it even more, and conservative beliefs are highly correlated with controlling behavior (1) so that's a double whammy of "it's not a phase it's who I am" and "you're a transphobe" combined with a generous and extremely eager to please online support group for teenage children of conservative parents.

Again, I apologize, I have been reading this thread and agreeing with your posts but this one caught me off guard because of course teenagers are jumping on board the trans thing as a fad.  They're teenagers, joining stupid fads and making poor decisions with lifelong consequences is what they do.

But yeah I did understand that you meant "practically nobody," not "literally nobody."

1: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352154620300334 "Political ideology and compensatory control mechanisms," Rebecca Ponce de Leon, Aaron C Kay, Volume 34 / August 2020 pp. 112-117 of "Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences," I know I cited that wrong and I don't really care.

[asmi]

DEI is abusive to the very people it claims to help

That's the thing - any preferential treatment implies that people so treated are less than those who are not given such treatment. I for one would've found it offensive to be defined by anything other than my professional skills and experience. But the worst part is that whenever people find out that somebody has received something based on certain criteria which has nothing to do with their job - and people always find these things out eventually - a label "DEI hire" sticks to that person forever and it will likely be much harder for such folks to continue working in the same environment because people tend to have very long memories when it comes to what they perceived to be an unfair decision.

[Cyclotron]

No. 

I think a straight white male like myself can safely make a joke about a straight white male being very common in engineering.

In any case, this is not my workplace and I can post almost anything within reason online.  I only have to behave myself when at work, or dealing with customers from work. I wouldn't make a joke like that in front of anyone from work, as it's not acceptable in a professional environment.

Sorry, I think you missed my point.

You're obviously welcome to freedom of speech and thought within your country's views of it, I suppose. I personally feel pretty much maximalist on that freedom.

The intent of the changes in language and training is at the core of the points or counter-jokes you might say I've made back. The organizations, people, and ideology behind these things are intent on changing you and your thoughts and speech.

You were making jokes, as you say, that would be "inappropriate" at work. That's not where these groups and ideologies intend to stop.  Maybe it would be a useful tool to consider it religion. They are on a mission to convert people. My joke in this case, retort if you will, was that it obviously hasn't worked on you.

But you also don't mind the attempt, is my read. A lot of people, myself included, aren't ok with it, and the joke that if I'm of a certain group I should lighten up is exactly our point about why we're not ok with it.

Exactly the same is true for the UK and I would not want anything less to be true.  And my example is to say just that: you cannot discriminate over protected characteristics, even if those would be seen as being in under-represented groups. 

I'm a proponent of fighting discrimination, as I was brought up in a household that held that as a core belief.  That's why I see these attempts as egregious, and I react to it; I don't let it slide, as you might say. I don't lighten up. Those responsible are willing to push it so far as to knowingly cross the line legally, hoping to gain some legal ground. This is the same thing that happens today in the US, where lawmakers pass laws they know will be struck down in court later. They promote the ideology at all costs and aren't interested in building a better world.

LOL, okay, yeah.  It is not my job to respect everyone's opinion equally because opinions are not equal, they are opinions.  Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, the UK and the US both have the concept of free speech, and I am not censoring yours am I? But I am also allowed to not agree with you or post a counterpoint. And I am not actively accusing anyone of anything - where was my accusation?

The training, as you know, demands that you respect everyone's opinion equally. I think I explained above why your comments are to my point that the training failed at its intent. Or I should say those who are programming it failed with you.  You don't respect others' opinions equally, and I'm not trying to change that. But I'm also not ok with people pushing that I must promote and punish you for not treating everyone's opinions equally.

(A) Maybe, depends on the course.  It won't make a racist person automatically not racist.  It might make someone who thought making racist jokes in the canteen was OK change their mind.  Just because "José from accounts" never complained, doesn't mean that he didn't find it offensive and it make the work environment a little more toxic for him.

(B) Depends on the practices.  DEI is such a wide term.  If you mean hiring on the basis of positive discrimination, I agree, in most countries that is illegal and I would go as far to say it is immoral and we should not be doing it.  But having the concept of diversity, equity and inclusion in an organisation is not wrong provided it is more about understanding.

C) Agreed but that is not the objective of most workplace courses.  The recommended standard in the UK is the ACAS course and you can go and look at the slides online, it's basically just "be mindful of what you say" and "this is what harrassment and bullying are".  It is not "Mohammed is from an underrepresented group and scored poorly, you must hire him because you have 3% fewer Muslims than you should."

A) The intent is derived from the ideologues that started, created, and have virulently pushed the "retraining" and thought police activities of "woke 1.0"
B) Unfortunately, the well is poisoned by the term DEI.  This too is intentional. You are trapped because you can't communicate that you fully support DEI in your head but don't support what is being pushed under that title. Sort of like the old joke, "When did you stop beating your wife?"
C) I think we agree in many ways. I think most people do when they actually talk.  I just resist the diminishing of the significance of what's being done. I'm not being tin-foil hatted and thinking of secret societies; no more than the effort of "spreading the good word" is tin-foil hatted as the mission of some religions.  And the whole "Woke" thing is exactly that and worse. It culturally absconded with a term, twisted it, and the DEI as described earlier, and now you're stuck being all those awful things unless you fall in line and change your thinking and language (speech).

Don't forget your misgendered connectors at the coffee shop; they should be tipped.

[tom66]

LOL, okay, yeah.  It is not my job to respect everyone's opinion equally because opinions are not equal, they are opinions.  Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, the UK and the US both have the concept of free speech, and I am not censoring yours am I? But I am also allowed to not agree with you or post a counterpoint. And I am not actively accusing anyone of anything - where was my accusation?

The training, as you know, demands that you respect everyone's opinion equally. I think I explained above why your comments are to my point that the training failed at its intent. Or I should say those who are programming it failed with you.  You don't respect others' opinions equally, and I'm not trying to change that. But I'm also not ok with people pushing that I must promote and punish you for not treating everyone's opinions equally.

No, it most certainly does not.  You do not have to respect opinions equally.  All the equality legislation says is you can't discriminate on the basis of protected characteristics.  So you can't disagree with "José from accounts" all the time just because he has a Spanish background for instance.  That would be discriminatory behaviour.  But if José genuinely says that tax returns are optional and we don't have to worry about VAT, no one should get upset if that is questioned.

Now you could well ask how can you prove discrimination?  The answer is that if both sides claim ignorance it's pretty much impossible to do so, much like lots of cases where it boils down to he said, she said.  But in the real world cases are rarely that difficult to decipher because there is written evidence or accounts to go on.  If there isn't any evidence then HR can't do much but they also aren't empowered or required to do anything either.

[dcrookston]

The course I did about 5 years ago basically said that only white people can be racist.

I am going to explain why this belief is held by some people.  I am not promoting this position, I am explaining it.  Hopefully the reader is capable of understanding a position / belief without adopting it for themselves.

Under the "black people cannot be racist" theory, racism is prejudice plus power.  Because black people are not (don't you dare laugh) in positions of power in the United States, black people cannot (by the definition they have chosen) be racist.

I kinda get where they're coming from.  I mean, I can see their point.  Never mind that Obama spent 8 years in the Oval Office and that plenty of white Americans are completely powerless.  On average, in general, if you tilt your head and squint, the US still looks mostly white on top.  Redefining "racism" like they've done is a hell of a trick though.  It strikes me as the kind of thing you do if you wake up one day and realize you've spent your whole life being racist and you have to hurry and cover your ass so the other side can keep being the bad guy.

On the other hand, if you have no ability to affect someone's life, or even what kind of day they're having, does your prejudice against them really matter?

Also, if we already have the word "prejudice," wouldn't it make sense to change the definition of "racist" to mean something different, rather than just a more specific form of prejudice?  This part is just a linguistic aside.  It reminds me of a quote by C.S. Lewis about the word "gentleman," let me see if I can find it.  Right, here we go, it's longer than I remember so I'll put it in a quote block:

The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone “a gentleman” you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not “a gentleman” you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said—so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully—“Ah, but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?” They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man “a gentleman” in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is “a gentleman” becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker’s attitude to that object. (A “nice” meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.

It seems that if we want "racist" to remain a useful word when we already have "prejudiced" sitting right there serving nearly the exact same purpose, maybe adopting a definition which is more specific and nuanced than simply "prejudiced based on one's race" may, from a standpoint of linguistic usefulness, be a good thing?  Even if it does mean that we would have to accept that some people literally cannot be racist, but must remain simply prejudiced against one's race.

[dcrookston]

The US Law forbids all discrimination in all cases

I'm sorry, but this is simply not true.  US law forbids discrimination in certain very specific situations or decisions, on the basis of certain fairly well defined characteristics.  Outside of those situations / decisions, or on the basis of unprotected characteristics, it is completely and perfectly legal to discriminate.

You are allowed to discriminate based on whether you think the person is an asshole or what kind of shirt they chose to wear to the job interview.  You can discriminate based on where they went to college, how they shook your hand, their personal grooming, how they answered your questions, whether they showed up on time, how articulate they are, their body language during the interview, whether they were respectful to your secretary, whether they seemed to pay attention or not, and whether they asked smart, insightful questions.  Hell you can even discriminate based on whether you think they're physically attractive or not.  I may consider you a creep for hiring exclusively beautiful women but there's no law against it.

If you're deciding who to invite to dinner, you can discriminate based on anything you want.  If you're deciding who to hire, you can discriminate based on something unprotected.  It's only the combination of the two (making a protected decision based on a protected status) where discrimination is illegal.

[Cyclotron]

The training, as you know, demands that you respect everyone's opinion equally. I think I explained above why your comments are to my point that the training failed at its intent. Or I should say those who are programming it failed with you.  You don't respect others' opinions equally, and I'm not trying to change that. But I'm also not ok with people pushing that I must promote and punish you for not treating everyone's opinions equally.

No, it most certainly does not.  You do not have to respect opinions equally.  All the equality legislation says is you can't discriminate on the basis of protected characteristics.  So you can't disagree with "José from accounts" all the time just because he has a Spanish background for instance.  That would be discriminatory behaviour.  But if José genuinely says that tax returns are optional and we don't have to worry about VAT, no one should get upset if that is questioned.

Now you could well ask how can you prove discrimination?  The answer is that if both sides claim ignorance it's pretty much impossible to do so, much like lots of cases where it boils down to he said, she said.  But in the real world cases are rarely that difficult to decipher because there is written evidence or accounts to go on.  If there isn't any evidence then HR can't do much but they also aren't empowered or required to do anything either.

I wasn't referencing legislation; I think you know that. I specifically called out "The training."   And I specifically called out the intent of the training by those that developed it. "The training" is a moving target too, and I have no idea what training you've had or the content

I can tell you what I've had to go through and what the content is. Indeed, it does require you to respect everyone's opinion equally, going so far as to make claims that you need to consider their DEI qualities and that they may have a valid but very different perspective driving the opinion. Again, this is a trap. If you accept the logic that people do have DEI qualities and that they do have different perspectives, then you are accepting that the training says "it's your fault".

The funniest thing of all is that you referenced "José from accounts," who has a Spanish background.  I find it funny because you can translate that to "The white guy named José from accounts" using the definition of "White" from the US government, which includes all people of Western European descent as "White".  We don't categorize people based on language yet.

[asmi]

I'm sorry, sir, and with respect -- have you ever met a teenager?  Especially a teenage girl?  They would absolutely put themselves through abject misery if they thought it would help them gain some popularity. 

Yeah, there is no shortage of videos of them doing all kinds of crazy risky stuff just to get their own 5 minutes of fame. And unfortunately sometimes these feats end really badly for them, and/or people around them.

[Cyclotron]

The US Law forbids all discrimination in all cases

I'm sorry, but this is simply not true.  US law forbids discrimination in certain very specific situations or decisions, on the basis of certain fairly well defined characteristics.  Outside of those situations / decisions, or on the basis of unprotected characteristics, it is completely and perfectly legal to discriminate.

You are allowed to discriminate based on whether you think the person is an asshole or what kind of shirt they chose to wear to the job interview.  You can discriminate based on where they went to college, how they shook your hand, their personal grooming, how they answered your questions, whether they showed up on time, how articulate they are, their body language during the interview, whether they were respectful to your secretary, whether they seemed to pay attention or not, and whether they asked smart, insightful questions.  Hell you can even discriminate based on whether you think they're physically attractive or not.  I may consider you a creep for hiring exclusively beautiful women but there's no law against it.

If you're deciding who to invite to dinner, you can discriminate based on anything you want.  If you're deciding who to hire, you can discriminate based on something unprotected.  It's only the combination of the two (making a protected decision based on a protected status) where discrimination is illegal.

Maybe consider or reflect on why you felt the need to post that false equivocation?  That's about all I got.   

[tom66]

I wasn't referencing legislation; I think you know that. I specifically called out "The training."   And I specifically called out the intent of the training by those that developed it. "The training" is a moving target too, and I have no idea what training you've had or the content

I can tell you what I've had to go through and what the content is. Indeed, it does require you to respect everyone's opinion equally, going so far as to make claims that you need to consider their DEI qualities and that they may have a valid but very different perspective driving the opinion. Again, this is a trap. If you accept the logic that people do have DEI qualities and that they do have different perspectives, then you are accepting that the training says "it's your fault".

The funniest thing of all is that you referenced "José from accounts," who has a Spanish background.  I find it funny because you can translate that to "The white guy named José from accounts" using the definition of "White" from the US government, which includes all people of Western European descent as "White".  We don't categorize people based on language yet.

I'm sorry you've been through such bad training, but it's certainly not the law in the UK.  I don't know how it would be supported under US law, either.  Maybe some corporate HR person thought it was appropriate.  Nonetheless to be absolutely clear, I would not support such policies.

It is worth noting that race and ethnicity are social constructs.   They are not real in any sense of the word.   There is no DNA test or biological test that can show someone is Spanish or black or whatever else.  We can look at the how the DNA compares to people who identify as being Spanish and say someone is 85% similar to that but also 40% similar to someone from Norway, etc.  So race/ethnicity (they more or less mean the same thing but ethnicity is the more modern term) is based on someone's statement of their background.  If someone says they are Spanish then they are Spanish.  They might be more broadly categorised into a white southern European group.  On their passport however it probably would say that their nationality is Spanish and place of birth in Spain, we would call a person like that "Spanish" and I don't think most Spanish people would find that offensive, but it's up to them to correct it if they want.

[Zero999]

The course I did about 5 years ago basically said that only white people can be racist.

I am going to explain why this belief is held by some people.  I am not promoting this position, I am explaining it.  Hopefully the reader is capable of understanding a position / belief without adopting it for themselves.

Under the "black people cannot be racist" theory, racism is prejudice plus power.  Because black people are not (don't you dare laugh) in positions of power in the United States, black people cannot (by the definition they have chosen) be racist.

I kinda get where they're coming from.  I mean, I can see their point.  Never mind that Obama spent 8 years in the Oval Office and that plenty of white Americans are completely powerless.  On average, in general, if you tilt your head and squint, the US still looks mostly white on top.  Redefining "racism" like they've done is a hell of a trick though.  It strikes me as the kind of thing you do if you wake up one day and realize you've spent your whole life being racist and you have to hurry and cover your ass so the other side can keep being the bad guy.

On the other hand, if you have no ability to affect someone's life, or even what kind of day they're having, does your prejudice against them really matter?

Also, if we already have the word "prejudice," wouldn't it make sense to change the definition of "racist" to mean something different, rather than just a more specific form of prejudice?  This part is just a linguistic aside.  It reminds me of a quote by C.S. Lewis about the word "gentleman," let me see if I can find it.  Right, here we go, it's longer than I remember so I'll put it in a quote block:

The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone “a gentleman” you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not “a gentleman” you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said—so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully—“Ah, but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?” They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man “a gentleman” in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is “a gentleman” becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker’s attitude to that object. (A “nice” meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.

It seems that if we want "racist" to remain a useful word when we already have "prejudiced" sitting right there serving nearly the exact same purpose, maybe adopting a definition which is more specific and nuanced than simply "prejudiced based on one's race" may, from a standpoint of linguistic usefulness, be a good thing?  Even if it does mean that we would have to accept that some people literally cannot be racist, but must remain simply prejudiced against one's race.

Yes. I am familiar with that argument. I have studied critical race theory. The fact that elements of it are so widely accepted by society, including this forum, is really alarming. It's good to post it for the benefit of others who haven't had the time or inclination to research CRT.

It is worth noting that race and ethnicity are social constructs.   They are not real in any sense of the word.   There is no DNA test or biological test that can show someone is Spanish or black or whatever else.  We can look at the how the DNA compares to people who identify as being Spanish and say someone is 85% similar to that but also 40% similar to someone from Norway, etc.  So race/ethnicity (they more or less mean the same thing but ethnicity is the more modern term) is based on someone's statement of their background.  If someone says they are Spanish then they are Spanish.  They might be more broadly categorised into a white southern European group.  On their passport however it probably would say that their nationality is Spanish and place of birth in Spain, we would call a person like that "Spanish" and I don't think most Spanish people would find that offensive, but it's up to them to correct it if they want.

In reality, if you can trace your family back to the same country more than a few generations, then more often than not your DNA will match your ethnicity. The exception is in multiracial societies such as most of the New World, where the majority are mixed in some way, although even then more often than not if your DNA is around half-West African you'll be noticeably black and treated as such by society.

If race were truly a social construct, then genes wouldn't mater at all and no one would have a problem with a European person identifying as black or whatever, but Rachel Dolezal's (look here up, if you're unfamiliar) experience shows otherwise.

Race really is biological not social. People look at another person and within a few seconds determine them as other by their facial features. It's true there are other cues such as dress and language and it doesn't always align perfectly with genetics, but we mustn't be fooled by critical race theory.

[tszaboo]

protected characteristics ... under-represented groups. 

This word salad shoul make you realize that the training you called harmless, completely brainwashed you.

[Zero999]

protected characteristics ... under-represented groups. 

This word salad shoul make you realize that the training you called harmless, completely brainwashed you.

Protected characteristics is one of the problems with this training/legislation.

Television advertisements in the UK clearly show how it works in real life. Note the ethnic majority is vastly underrepresented i.e. if one watched the adverts muted, the could be forgiven for believing they are watching a non-UK/European station.

[Cyclotron]

I wasn't referencing legislation; I think you know that. I specifically called out "The training."   And I specifically called out the intent of the training by those that developed it. "The training" is a moving target too, and I have no idea what training you've had or the content

I can tell you what I've had to go through and what the content is. Indeed, it does require you to respect everyone's opinion equally, going so far as to make claims that you need to consider their DEI qualities and that they may have a valid but very different perspective driving the opinion. Again, this is a trap. If you accept the logic that people do have DEI qualities and that they do have different perspectives, then you are accepting that the training says "it's your fault".

The funniest thing of all is that you referenced "José from accounts," who has a Spanish background.  I find it funny because you can translate that to "The white guy named José from accounts" using the definition of "White" from the US government, which includes all people of Western European descent as "White".  We don't categorize people based on language yet.

I'm sorry you've been through such bad training, but it's certainly not the law in the UK.  I don't know how it would be supported under US law, either.  Maybe some corporate HR person thought it was appropriate.  Nonetheless to be absolutely clear, I would not support such policies.

It is worth noting that race and ethnicity are social constructs.   They are not real in any sense of the word.   There is no DNA test or biological test that can show someone is Spanish or black or whatever else.  We can look at the how the DNA compares to people who identify as being Spanish and say someone is 85% similar to that but also 40% similar to someone from Norway, etc.  So race/ethnicity (they more or less mean the same thing but ethnicity is the more modern term) is based on someone's statement of their background.  If someone says they are Spanish then they are Spanish.  They might be more broadly categorised into a white southern European group.  On their passport however it probably would say that their nationality is Spanish and place of birth in Spain, we would call a person like that "Spanish" and I don't think most Spanish people would find that offensive, but it's up to them to correct it if they want.

I assume you're ignoring my point on purpose. I talked about the training and its intent. It has been found illegal in the US, which is why the nonsense has stopped. I covered that. Just because it's been found illegal doesn't mean we didn't waste time and resources, and that's exactly my point.

I see people, and they all have their characteristics. The training, even to some degree- what's left of the DEI training in the US- intentionally wants me to see specific details about people. Details that organizations and others think I am missing.  But at least now, it's bounded by the SCOTUS rulings.

It's still funny that you basically created a scenario where Jose, a white man, would be the object of offense or offended, as it were. 
I like the explanation of race, and so on; it makes it funnier to me.

Again, I don't see much to argue over unless you really see value in the HR training.  I would argue it's not of value. HR just needs you to check the box, making you legally bound to the "policy" so it can be used in court if needed. Protect the company. So far, even at its most innocuous, it isn't important or legally significant. HR folks need to justify their job.

Maybe this CEO is onto something:
https://www.entrepreneur.com/business-news/this-ceo-fired-his-entire-hr-department-to-rescue-his-failing-fintech-company

[Cyclotron]

protected characteristics ... under-represented groups. 

This word salad shoul make you realize that the training you called harmless, completely brainwashed you.

Protected characteristics is one of the problems with this training/legislation.

Television advertisements in the UK clearly show how it works in real life. Note the ethnic majority is vastly underrepresented i.e. if one watched the adverts muted, the could be forgiven for believing they are watching a non-UK/European station.

This is, I believe, true. The research fully supports that some groups that would be considered "minority" are very overrepresented, especially in Western advertising.

Woke 1.0 has given us the meme that Netflix will pick a person of a particular minority to play any given role. Like humor/jokes in general, memes are funny because they have a basis of truth that most people can agree is reality.

[negativ3]

I sometimes wonder what real cost to humanity is, past dollars and cents, of everything based on forced quotas instead of merit.

[tom66]

It is worth noting that race and ethnicity are social constructs.   They are not real in any sense of the word.   There is no DNA test or biological test that can show someone is Spanish or black or whatever else.  We can look at the how the DNA compares to people who identify as being Spanish and say someone is 85% similar to that but also 40% similar to someone from Norway, etc.  So race/ethnicity (they more or less mean the same thing but ethnicity is the more modern term) is based on someone's statement of their background.  If someone says they are Spanish then they are Spanish.  They might be more broadly categorised into a white southern European group.  On their passport however it probably would say that their nationality is Spanish and place of birth in Spain, we would call a person like that "Spanish" and I don't think most Spanish people would find that offensive, but it's up to them to correct it if they want.

In reality, if you can trace your family back to the same country more than a few generations, then more often than not your DNA will match your ethnicity. The exception is in multiracial societies such as most of the New World, where the majority are mixed in some way, although even then more often than not if your DNA is around half-West African you'll be noticeably black and treated as such by society.

If race were truly a social construct, then genes wouldn't mater at all and no one would have a problem with a European person identifying as black or whatever, but Rachel Dolezal's (look here up, if you're unfamiliar) experience shows otherwise.

Race really is biological not social. People look at another person and within a few seconds determine them as other by their facial features. It's true there are other cues such as dress and language and it doesn't always align perfectly with genetics, but we mustn't be fooled by critical race theory.

Nope.  Race science is psuedoscience.  There is no biological fact of race. 

Genetic studies consistently show that there is far more genetic variation within any given racial group than between different groups. Human genetic variation is continuous and clinal (gradual change over geographic distance) rather than neatly divisible into distinct, discrete categories.

While individuals inherit specific geographical ancestry (which can influence traits like skin pigmentation or susceptibility to certain localised diseases), the concept of "race" as a rigid biological taxonomy is arbitrary and culturally defined rather than scientifically validated.

There are merely correlations between people that share appearances and backgrounds.  The idea that you can deterministically say someone is black or white or whatever is false.  Race exists only as a social classification which people can opt into.  Race is also ascribed by society, for instance, a US police report may describe someone as "African American" even if they have "black skin colour" with no particular association with the USA.

And whilst I think Dolezal is/was a nutter, because race is a social construct, she's free to call herself whatever she wants.  She does not have to be accepted by the wider group to think that she is that race.  It's a free association.

[tom66]

protected characteristics ... under-represented groups. 

This word salad shoul make you realize that the training you called harmless, completely brainwashed you.

Nope, it's just the UK law.  The following are "protected characteristics" [1]:

age;
disability;
gender reassignment;
marriage and civil partnership;
pregnancy and maternity;
race;
religion or belief;
sex;
sexual orientation.

Most people focus on the race and sex aspects, as those are possibly the most controversial among the anti-DEI people.  But the act also prohibits discrimination on age (we're all getting old), marriage and civil partnership (many will marry or have a partnership), and religion & belief (I'm sure we have religious people here), and sexual orientation (about 5% of people are gay and as far as we know, this is not by choice.)  The law specifically states maternity as a protection, but courts have also regarded paternity as having some degree of protection. 

As for "under-represented groups", this is phrasing also used in the same law, and related laws.  However, there's no statutory requirement for companies to resolve anything here; it merely lays framework for the government to introduce policies to improve social equality. 

[Cyclotron]

I sometimes wonder what real cost to humanity is, past dollars and cents, of everything based on forced quotas instead of merit.

To be fair, I can't really say I've done much "good" with the time I've spent in this thread.  It is theoretically possible that I could have discovered something profound tinkering somewhere else.

The more people you add to the list who were impacted, the more you could easily predict that substantial good impact statistically could have been produced in its stead.

I tend to enjoy these types of pondering questions.  In the past I would try to generate the numbers myself. The great thing about AI is that we can do speculative type inquery like this in a hurry.
I prompted Gemini with these:

Code: [Select]

Generally speaking, what is the estimated number of hours spent on woke, dei, or other similar objective training, discussions, meetings. Unless there's research, just generalize something for the past 15 yearsand then

Code: [Select]

total this for the numbers of people generally covered under such Western things in those countries involved and include the guess of time spent on it for discussion and meetings
Conservative scenario (100 million core workers): ~7.6 billion hours
Upper-bound scenario (150 million workers, including frequent ERG leads): ~11.4 billion hours

7.6 billion hours. 

[paulca]

I was in CitiGroup when their DEI and AA program kicked into high gear.

The published a global map showing "White", "BAME", "LGBT" percentages and the targets.  Then they send emails to manager to say, "If you team does not match these percentages, start firing straight white men"

It wasn't even dressed up or hidden.

I did notice that on this global map, there were no percentages for the middle east.  I wonder why?  No race/ethnical breakdown for Africa or India either.  Again I wonder why?

[EEVblog]

I was in CitiGroup when their DEI and AA program kicked into high gear.

I'm glad I missed the corporate DEI craze, I would not have survived with my job intact. I would have been the James Demore