Is it okay to discriminate by sex when appointing a sex discrimination commissioner?

[ronburgundy]

But we are dealing with people who don't believe in reverse discrimination.

There is no reverse discrimination. There's discrimination. Discriminatory judgments can happen by anyone of any gender against anyone of any gender. If there is a prejudiced judgment against a man that is not 'reverse' discrimination. It's discrimination.

False dichotomy. It is discrimination, but reverse discrimination is just a sub-type of discrimination, so its both. There objectively exists discrimination that shares the defining features of discrimination in general, but has additional qualities not shared by all discrimination, and thus it is a sub-type. This is discrimination where members of a "group" are discriminated against specifically for the reason that other members of the group is believed to have been on the positive end of past discrimination. This current discrimination is rationalized as an effort to reverse the effects of that past discrimination. It is perfectly reasonable to identify this as a particular sub-type of discrimination, and "reverse' is a rather reasonable and informative label that signals the key attribute that qualifies it as a sub-type.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Sorry, but it is difficult for a man to imagine how much value to assign to a vagina. For a woman, she has one.

Egad, more bigotry and hatred.

Men can have vaginas too.

Some men.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Of course, though she's demonstrated that she would violate the very Act itself if she were able to choose the Commissioner.

No, she didn't.

The ideology is actually important. Some people would not actually uphold the Act because it is not part of their ideology, like say Ann Coulter. Such persons do get appointed and/or nominated for positions who then talk about how various institutions need to be drowned in a bathtub. Look at say George W Bush who was sworn to uphold the Constitution but behind closed doors says it is just a piece of paper. There are also people in this forum who would refer to women being discriminated against as "lying bitches." Those people also not suitable because they have an anti-woman ideology.

Even if you disagreed with the Act, it would be very dangerous to appoint anyone (openly) hostile towards it, since the Act is a result of Australia's international human rights agreements.

Openly, closedly, etc etc. Let's face it, when politicians appoint people to positions, they do include ideology, same with voters. George W Bush would not have nominated Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

Sorry, but it is difficult for a man to imagine how much value to assign to a vagina. For a woman, she has one.

Under the same reasoning, it's difficult for a woman to imagine how much value to assign to a penis, is it not? But the Act isn't about valuing vaginas; the Act is about protecting all genders and sexual orientations from discrimination in employment.

I would trust a woman meeting the criteria I laid out more to understand the right value and consequence to her vagina that abortion and related laws regarding abortions entail.

 

[Metaphor]

No, she didn't.

Yes, she did. She explicitly states she can offer help for hiring the best 'woman' for the job. But Jenna Price isn't doing the appointing so it doesn't matter.

Openly, closedly, etc etc. Let's face it, when politicians appoint people to positions, they do include ideology, same with voters. George W Bush would not have nominated Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

Are you suggesting that it doesn't matter if, in the act of appointing a Commissioner, the Act itself is breached, because it's an ideological appointment anyway?

I would trust a woman meeting the criteria I laid out more to understand the right value and consequence to her vagina that abortion and related laws regarding abortions entail.

This has nothing to do with abortion or abortion laws.

And I wouldn't trust man qua man on laws relating to male genital mutilation: it has been repeatedly demonstrated to me that possessing a penis is no barrier to advocating and desiring to mutilate the penises of baby boys.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

There are historical and practical reasons, not to exclude men from consideration, but to only choose one if they show a level of understanding of the issues commensurate with that which comes with the territory of being female. There are so many eminently qualified gazelles out there.

So in your esteemed opinion when will a man be suitable to head the Sex Discrimination Commission?

How many decades do you reckon?

I reckon a man will be suitable for consideration when one applies for consideration who shows a level of understanding of the issues that most women acquire just by virtue of being a woman in the workforce, as I said.

I don't think we should then automatically give him the job, regardless of who else has applied, just because if a man applies, the female applicants can't possibly measure up, as Metaphor implies.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yes, she did. She explicitly states she can offer help for hiring the best 'woman' for the job. But Jenna Price isn't doing the appointing so it doesn't matter.

If it didn't matter you wouldn't be harping on it so much. But, if she does want a woman, I've explained why that could be the case. If, on the other hand, it just happens that the most qualified are woman, then it's not discrimination. You haven't provided any evidence that there is a qualified man for the position and this is your op, your burden of proof.

Openly, closedly, etc etc. Let's face it, when politicians appoint people to positions, they do include ideology, same with voters. George W Bush would not have nominated Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

Are you suggesting that it doesn't matter if, in the act of appointing a Commissioner, the Act itself is breached, because it's an ideological appointment anyway?

I would trust a woman meeting the criteria I laid out more to understand the right value and consequence to her vagina that abortion and related laws regarding abortions entail.

This has nothing to do with abortion or abortion laws.

Technically, it's an example of how a person meeting the 4 criteria can be trusted more. Not that this is what is being done, mind you. You still haven't provided any evidence of a man qualified for the position.

And I wouldn't trust man qua man on laws relating to male genital mutilation: it has been repeatedly demonstrated to me that possessing a penis is no barrier to advocating and desiring to mutilate the penises of baby boys.

Except that would only be 1 of the 4 criteria.

 

[Metaphor]

If it didn't matter you wouldn't be harping on it so much. But, if she does want a woman, I've explained why that could be the case. If, on the other hand, it just happens that the most qualified are woman, then it's not discrimination.

I know that and I've said it myself.

You haven't provided any evidence that there is a qualified man for the position and this is your op, your burden of proof.

It wouldn't matter if I could or I couldn't. I did not say that there were any qualified men. I said ruling out an entire gender before you even examine the field is discrimination. You don't even have to believe that they are ruling out an entire gender in this specific case; I just want to ask people whether ruling out an entire gender is desirable.

Technically, it's an example of how a person meeting the 4 criteria can be trusted more. Not that this is what is being done, mind you. You still haven't provided any evidence of a man qualified for the position.

It wouldn't matter if I could or I couldn't. I did not say that there were any qualified men. I said ruling out an entire gender before you even examine the field is discrimination.

Except that would only be 1 of the 4 criteria.

This is absurd. I am not asking you to believe anything. I'm asking you whether ruling out an entire gender before you've examined the field is desirable.

 

[Metaphor]

An update: the position is definitely not open to men

There won't be any sort of an advertisement for the position of Sex Discrimination Commissioner. But you can apply right now. See below.

Here are some of the qualities you need, if you do plan to apply, according to your prospective boss, the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Gillian Triggs.

"Applicants will preferably have a sound knowledge of the law and be willing to step up, take risks and be a leader, edgy, they have to stand up and speak up.

"Someone who has a sense of the power of women and believes in themselves: confident, articulate, sure and courageous.

"It's a public role, you've got to be able to speak to an audience, be prepared to speak up and speak directly to your audience and to Australia.

"It's a strong advocacy role, you need women willing to take the risk of speaking up."

If that's you, it's not too late to apply, so long as you do it today.

The hot gossip in Canberra is that the panel – usually someone from Prime Minister and Cabinet, someone from Attorney-General's, someone from the Public Service Commission – will meet before Christmas to deliberate. Send your extremely detailed resumés to Senator George Brandis. Apparently, the panel is seeking to build a list of 50 women – as wide a range of talented women as possible.

So, this is good news. It means we will soon have a new Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner to replace the sainted Elizabeth Broderick, who left her post in September and is now set to head the Australian Federal Police's Diversity and Inclusion Strategy.

The even better news is that the appointment is unlikely to be plucked from a grab bag of right wing favourites. We no longer have to be concerned that a spiteful leader, ignoring process, would appoint an anti-abortion advocate, or a man.

...

I am struggling to think of anything more cartoonishly ironic. Saudi Arabia as the head of the UN Human Rights Council is a close second, I guess.

 

[bigfield]

I guess I was wrong that they just can't find qualified men.

 

[bilby]

I guess I was wrong that they just can't find qualified men.

Not at all. If one of the qualifications is 'be a woman', then finding qualified men is impossible, so you were spot-on.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Before commenting, let us consider the reliability of the information.

Note the phrase:

The hot gossip in Canberra is ...

Could you cite the primary source of the information posted? Note that "primary source" has a specific meaning.

 

[Metaphor]

Before commenting, let us consider the reliability of the information.

Note the phrase:

The hot gossip in Canberra is ...

Could you cite the primary source of the information posted? Note that "primary source" has a specific meaning.

Ms Price did not disclose her sources, so I am no wiser than you on where the information came from.

But whether it's true or not, do you think a shortlist that directly excludes men from consideration is appropriate?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'd rather not engage in the rumor mill.

 

[Metaphor]

I'd rather not engage in the rumor mill.

Offering your views on a hypothetical is not engaging in the rumour mill.

Do you believe men should be excluded from consideration for the position of sex discrimination commissioner?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'd rather not engage in the rumor mill.

Offering your views on a hypothetical is not engaging in the rumour mill.

Do you believe men should be excluded from consideration for the position of sex discrimination commissioner?

We've been through this before and I answered. I came back into this thread because you said you had an UPDATE. It turns out to be rumors. So I'm getting out of the thread. Thanks.

 

[Metaphor]

Offering your views on a hypothetical is not engaging in the rumour mill.

Do you believe men should be excluded from consideration for the position of sex discrimination commissioner?

We've been through this before and I answered. I came back into this thread because you said you had an UPDATE. It turns out to be rumors. So I'm getting out of the thread. Thanks.

It is an update. The 'rumour' is about the shortlist; most of the article is not 'rumour', but it includes direct quotes from relevant parties, including the current President of the Australian Human Rights Commission who rules out the possibility of a man being considered.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, that's a translation thing. In traditional Australian aboriginal dialects, the prefix Hu- on a word indicates exclusion. So, the commission is actually there to work on how to exclude rights for a man.

It doesn't mean the same thing that it does in the rest of the world. It's sort of like when an Aussie asks if you've seen Billy, they might be asking you if you know where the teapot is. There's just some odd phrases down there.

 

[Draconis]

Perhaps these sorts of jobs ought to be reserved for the intersex or any eunuchs (if we can find them)

or is that discrimination too?

 

[Metaphor]

And the winner is...

Kate Jenkins

No info on the genders of the people on the 70-person shortlist, but we do have another female Sex Discrimination Commissioner.

Australia's new sex discrimination commissioner is Kate Jenkins, the Turnbull government announced on Thursday.

Ms Jenkins is the current Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commissioner and is a former partner at law firm Herbert Smith Freehills.

Ms Jenkins' long-awaited appointment comes after the key position was left vacant by the government for more than five months after Elizabeth Broderick finished her term.

Attorney-General George Brandis and Minister for Women Michaelia Cash said they were "deeply impressed" with Ms Jenkins' leadership on sex discrimination and sexual harassment.

Ms Jenkins has worked with organisations such as Victoria Police to address discrimination and harassment and established Male Champions of Change in Victoria, furthering the work of Ms Broderick who set up the program while she was commissioner.

The new sex discrimination commissioner has also had a particular focus on diversity in sport and is a director of the Carlton Football Club.

Earlier this week, Senator Brandis confirmed that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull had rejected his original choice for sex discrimination commissioner and sent him away to set up a more rigorous selection process.

"Mr Turnbull and I had a conversation, the outcome of which was we decided that an arm's length process of selection should be adopted ... and that arm's length process of selection has resulted in the appointment that was decided by cabinet yesterday."

The selection panel, included Ms Broderick and secretary of the Attorney-General's department, Chris Moraitis​. From an initial field of 70 candidates, the panel interviewed seven people before a recommendation was made to cabinet.

Australian Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs was not included in the selection panel but on Thursday said she was delighted by the appointment.

"She brings a wealth of expertise to the commission, especially law, and I am confident that she will continue to contribute greatly to our work in advancing gender equality in Australia," Professor Triggs said.

"I have admired Ms Jenkins' leadership of the Victorian Commission over the last few years and believe that her appointment ... will enable her to promote a truly national approach to the equality of all Australians, especially in employment."