Legal definition of woman is based on biological sex, UK supreme court rules

[Toni]

Or if there were no highly qualified black women to comprise a good pool of candidates.

Nobody is saying that black women (and men) should not be considered. The problem is that they were the only ones who were considered, cutting out 93% of the population from consideration (97% in case of the California senate seat).

And…up to that point, the only people considered ( for a major party) were white men with the exception of Geraldine Ferraro and Sarah Palin, both white. Certainly Palin was chosen because she had a female and it beggars belief that anyone who was not white would have been considered.

 

[pood]

white male turds

Here we see racism and sexism that pood casually throws about.

Btw, I recognize Harriett Tubman, but who are the others?

Of course you wouldn’t recognize them. Wot a surprise.

And explain why you think they are qualified, other than their gender and race? Specifically. And without racist and sexist rhetoric.

Four straight content-free posts reveals a lot.

 

[pood]

Or if there were no highly qualified black women to comprise a good pool of candidates.

Nobody is saying that black women (and men) should not be considered. The problem is that they were the only ones who were considered, cutting out 93% of the population from consideration (97% in case of the California senate seat).

No, no, no. Try to follow a simple chain is reasoning.

The problem is not that this one time, a presidential candidate announced he was only considering qualified black women to be vice president. The problem is that all the other times, qualified black women (and many others who were not white, male, hetero and cisgendered) were specifically excluded from consideration.

You whine about “DEI,” but never acknowledge that DEI did not arise in some vacuum. It arose because always in the past, what we have had is MIE — Monotony, Inequity and Exclusion, always specifically designed and implemented to keep white man in the saddle, both in government and in positions of authority in private industry.

But let’s be honest. Had Biden never announced he was only considering qualified black women, but then went ahead and picked one anyway, you’d still be whining that it was “DEI” pick. Because the fact is that for people like you, any success by non-whites and non-males can never have been earned. From your perspective they had to have been given something they didn’t deserve.

 

[laughing dog]

Or if there were no highly qualified black women to comprise a good pool of candidates.

Nobody is saying that black women (and men) should not be considered. The problem is that they were the only ones who were considered, cutting out 93% of the population from consideration (97% in case of the California senate seat).

So? Does it bother you when only Democrats are considered or Republicans or loaylists or men ?

On the misogyny charge I rest my case.

Pointing out a very likely case of a quid pro quo is not "misogyny".

It is an indication when the only time one brings it up is with a woman and it is based on an assumption.

 

[TSwizzle]

back to the OP.



Here is a man who pretends to be a woman cursing out an actual woman.

 

[Bomb#20]

Nobody is saying that black women (and men) should not be considered. The problem is that they were the only ones who were considered, cutting out 93% of the population from consideration (97% in case of the California senate seat).

And…up to that point, the only people considered ( for a major party) were white men with the exception of Geraldine Ferraro and Sarah Palin, both white. Certainly Palin was chosen because she had a female and it beggars belief that anyone who was not white would have been considered.

Considered? Try drafted. If he'd agreed to it Colin Powell would have been a shoe-in. For that matter, if he'd decided to go for the top spot himself he almost certainly would have been elected President in 2000.

 

[Toni]

Nobody is saying that black women (and men) should not be considered. The problem is that they were the only ones who were considered, cutting out 93% of the population from consideration (97% in case of the California senate seat).

And…up to that point, the only people considered ( for a major party) were white men with the exception of Geraldine Ferraro and Sarah Palin, both white. Certainly Palin was chosen because she had a female and it beggars belief that anyone who was not white would have been considered.

Considered? Try drafted. If he'd agreed to it Colin Powell would have been a shoe-in. For that matter, if he'd decided to go for the top spot himself he almost certainly would have been elected President in 2000.

But we’ll never know. Racism certainly would have played a role. That was certainly likely part of the calculus in choosing a running mate. My guess is also that he didn’t want the job. Because afaik, we never heard rumblings about him ready in the wings.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I said it because it is correct. There was never a time that quotas did not exist in this country. Prior to affirmative action and the civil rights movement, virtually all available spots, certainly for positions of authority, were reserved for white heterosexual cisgendered men, preferably WASP. Since that changed people like Derec are whining that their unearned privileges have been taken from them.

Disagree. What used to exist was simply excluding non-whites, not quotas.

 

[Tigers!]

The British parliament will resit after the Easter recess on 22/04/2025 (that is the 22nd April for you Yanks).
I have no doubt that a bill will be introduced into that sitting that will force a change in the legal definition of a man/woman to ensure that the horrendous, hideous ruling of the Supreme Court will not happen again.
A man/woman will then be what ever the powers that be will say that it is (all praise to Humpty Dumpty)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

(Of course, Vice Presidents are normally chosen by selection methods not based on measuring skills. Usually it's appeal to some demographic the Presidential candidate thinks will help win the election -- so there's little reason to think DEI hires will be any worse on average than other VPs. For that matter, I can only think of one VP in living memory who was chosen for his skill set, and we saw how badly that worked out.)

No, I was talking about Derec’s characterization of people in certain positions previously ( and currently) which exclusively went to white males who do not belong to the category white male. He has repeatedly called Kamala Harris a DEI hire. Never mind that white male has been the preferred DEI hiring category for centuries. Which has been effective because laws and tradition have assigned the position of ‘leader’ to a single category: white male and some people still cling to the belief that is the best category because it is traditional and customary and does not represent change or a challenge to the status quo.

I’m very well aware of how candidates for high office are chosen.

All VP candidates are DEI. It's just DEI doesn't always mean something other than cis-het-white-male.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're mixing up characteristics of individuals with statistical averages. If you pick a basketball player by having candidates shoot hoops and picking the one who scores the most baskets, you'll typically get a better player than if you pick one by having the candidates draw straws. But there are no guaranteed in life -- the best player might draw the short straw and the third best player might have a good day during the test. Hiring on the basis of DEI is like hiring by drawing straws or hiring alphabetically or any other selection method not based on measuring skills -- on average you'll get less skilled people that way. But individuals aren't averages.

There are very very few hiring decisions that are based on the measurement of skills, because both the definitions and measurements of skills are, at best, imprecise.. Really, your example is utopian fluff.

You can't do it perfectly but when you base hiring on objective skills you do better than when you base it on DEI.

When you doing it on a large scale you certainly can blind it. To reject that says you want to discriminate.

 

[Toni]

(Of course, Vice Presidents are normally chosen by selection methods not based on measuring skills. Usually it's appeal to some demographic the Presidential candidate thinks will help win the election -- so there's little reason to think DEI hires will be any worse on average than other VPs. For that matter, I can only think of one VP in living memory who was chosen for his skill set, and we saw how badly that worked out.)

No, I was talking about Derec’s characterization of people in certain positions previously ( and currently) which exclusively went to white males who do not belong to the category white male. He has repeatedly called Kamala Harris a DEI hire. Never mind that white male has been the preferred DEI hiring category for centuries. Which has been effective because laws and tradition have assigned the position of ‘leader’ to a single category: white male and some people still cling to the belief that is the best category because it is traditional and customary and does not represent change or a challenge to the status quo.

I’m very well aware of how candidates for high office are chosen.

All VP candidates are DEI. It's just DEI doesn't always mean something other than cis-het-white-male.

It just almost always means something other than cis white male.

 

[Toni]

You're mixing up characteristics of individuals with statistical averages. If you pick a basketball player by having candidates shoot hoops and picking the one who scores the most baskets, you'll typically get a better player than if you pick one by having the candidates draw straws. But there are no guaranteed in life -- the best player might draw the short straw and the third best player might have a good day during the test. Hiring on the basis of DEI is like hiring by drawing straws or hiring alphabetically or any other selection method not based on measuring skills -- on average you'll get less skilled people that way. But individuals aren't averages.

There are very very few hiring decisions that are based on the measurement of skills, because both the definitions and measurements of skills are, at best, imprecise.. Really, your example is utopian fluff.

You can't do it perfectly but when you base hiring on objective skills you do better than when you base it on DEI.

When you doing it on a large scale you certainly can blind it. To reject that says you want to discriminate.

FFS: NO ONE hires on the basis sex, gender, race or religion.

Until relatively recently virtually ALL hiring decisions included only a pool of white cis male, preferably Christian adjacent—except for jobs that were considered too menial, too dirty or involving too much hard physical labor or danger.

WHY is it that people believe that Affirmative Action ever existed? It’s because persons of color and women and persons with ‘funny’ accents or religions were considered deemed not fit for the good, well paying jobs. Or if such candidates were undeniably the best ones for the job, hiring managers/bosses would ‘worry’ that customers would not react well, would not accept, would not trust a woman, a person of color, or non-Christian looking or obviously not straight or cis.

Sadly, it took the enactment of Civil Rights legislation to force the inclusion of non-white, non make non cis non-Christian people.

Unfortunately, some hiring managers and bosses used AA as cover instead of saying that this person who is not white/male//cis/Christian or adjacent actually is the best candidate.

Which made it so much easier for cis white males and those dependent upon their wages or approval to claim that so and so was only hired because they are black/female/hispanic/Jewish, Sikh, Hindu or Muslim.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And? Derec doesn't call her that because she's not a white male. He calls her that because Biden decided he'd choose a black woman before he decided to choose her. His implication isn't that she's likely to be less qualified than someone else would have been because she's a black woman; his implication is that she's likely to be less qualified than someone else would have been because she isn't the winner of a qualifications contest.

Exactly. If you set out to find someone with irrelevant attribute X it's automatically a DEI hire.

However, VP is normally a DEI hire anyway, just not always so blatantly.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Over and over we are told that Harris was a DEI hire because Biden himself declared that he would only select a black woman.

This claim might have validity only IF the following fact were true, which it is not: that in the past, black women have been seriously considered for vice president, along with everyone else.

Since they have not been, the complaint is entirely without merit.

So discrimination in favor of X is proper since X was discriminated against the past?

No, this is a big problem with the left. You can't fix past wrongs, the attempt simply perpetuates the wrong rather than fixing it.

 

[Toni]

And? Derec doesn't call her that because she's not a white male. He calls her that because Biden decided he'd choose a black woman before he decided to choose her. His implication isn't that she's likely to be less qualified than someone else would have been because she's a black woman; his implication is that she's likely to be less qualified than someone else would have been because she isn't the winner of a qualifications contest.

Exactly. If you set out to find someone with irrelevant attribute X it's automatically a DEI hire.

However, VP is normally a DEI hire anyway, just not always so blatantly.

Do you not think that at least sometimes gender, sex, race, religion, etc. ARE positive attributes?

Representation matters. Quick, easy example: My husband is a professor at a small public university, in a pretty male dominated field. For many years, they had a virtually all male department, with one female prof who occasionally taught classes in that department. But then they hired an older woman as part of the department and in the years following, there was a noticeable uptick in women students choosing that discipline as their major. Students of all ages notice if the people in charge, the people they see in positions of authority —which includes elementary school, look like them and they respond to that, however unconsciously. Same thing for doctors, lawyers, police officers, scientists, architects, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, computer geeks ( intended to be all inclusive rather than derisive), cooks, designers of all kinds, nurses, etc. oh, I do think it matters a bit less for middle class kids but it is especially powerful for kids from marginalized groups, including lower income.

No rational person in the world believes that unqualified or less qualified candidates who are not cis white males are hired over more qualified cis white males. The people who believe that believe that in all probability the most qualified person is cis white and male.

 

[pood]

Over and over we are told that Harris was a DEI hire because Biden himself declared that he would only select a black woman.

This claim might have validity only IF the following fact were true, which it is not: that in the past, black women have been seriously considered for vice president, along with everyone else.

Since they have not been, the complaint is entirely without merit.

So discrimination in favor of X is proper since X was discriminated against the past?

No, this is a big problem with the left. You can't fix past wrongs, the attempt simply perpetuates the wrong rather than fixing it.

This is silly. It is simply a way to rig the game yet again favor of cis straight white men. Someone can lie and say, “I’m going to consider everyone” but then keep on hiring only cis straight white men. OTOH if someone is sincere and then really does hire a qualified black woman, the pick will still be castigated as discrimination against cis straight white men. In fact there is not and never has been discrimination against cis straight white men. Removing unearned privileges is not discrimination.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You can't do it perfectly but when you base hiring on objective skills you do better than when you base it on DEI.

When you doing it on a large scale you certainly can blind it. To reject that says you want to discriminate.

FFS: NO ONE hires on the basis sex, gender, race or religion.

That's your fantasyland, not reality. When you set out to find someone with criterion X you are hiring by that X. Just because it's not the only factor doesn't change this.

Until relatively recently virtually ALL hiring decisions included only a pool of white cis male, preferably Christian adjacent—except for jobs that were considered too menial, too dirty or involving too much hard physical labor or danger.

Continuing the discrimination doesn't fix the past discrimination.

WHY is it that people believe that Affirmative Action ever existed? It’s because persons of color and women and persons with ‘funny’ accents or religions were considered deemed not fit for the good, well paying jobs. Or if such candidates were undeniably the best ones for the job, hiring managers/bosses would ‘worry’ that customers would not react well, would not accept, would not trust a woman, a person of color, or non-Christian looking or obviously not straight or cis.

The original civil rights actions were proper. Discrimination was baked into the system, to be fair would put you at a disadvantage. That's long past, though, but the "solution" lives on, ever more desperate to prove that it's needed.

 

[Toni]

You can't do it perfectly but when you base hiring on objective skills you do better than when you base it on DEI.

When you doing it on a large scale you certainly can blind it. To reject that says you want to discriminate.

FFS: NO ONE hires on the basis sex, gender, race or religion.

That's your fantasyland, not reality. When you set out to find someone with criterion X you are hiring by that X. Just because it's not the only factor doesn't change this.

Until relatively recently virtually ALL hiring decisions included only a pool of white cis male, preferably Christian adjacent—except for jobs that were considered too menial, too dirty or involving too much hard physical labor or danger.

Continuing the discrimination doesn't fix the past discrimination.

WHY is it that people believe that Affirmative Action ever existed? It’s because persons of color and women and persons with ‘funny’ accents or religions were considered deemed not fit for the good, well paying jobs. Or if such candidates were undeniably the best ones for the job, hiring managers/bosses would ‘worry’ that customers would not react well, would not accept, would not trust a woman, a person of color, or non-Christian looking or obviously not straight or cis.

The original civil rights actions were proper. Discrimination was baked into the system, to be fair would put you at a disadvantage. That's long past, though, but the "solution" lives on, ever more desperate to prove that it's needed.

My dear Loren, it is you who is living in a fantasy world where all the best things are rightfully in the hands of white men because that’s the way it has always been and therefore white men must be the most qualified.

Disadvantages to out groups do not disappear by writing and enacting a piece of legislation. Currently, a huge disadvantage is if one is assumed to have one’s position because of their skin color , sex and gender ( and religion, native language) and not because of their actual qualifications and abilities and performance.

I know that it is very difficult to share center stage when one has held that position for so long, one assumes it is because that is how God intended it to be.

 

[pood]

Someone says, “Hey, qualified black women have been neglected in our hiring for a very long time — no, worse, they have systematically excluded from being hired, and not just for a very long time, but always. So, you know what? This one time, I am only going to consider a qualified black woman for the job,”

And what a hue and cry goes up from those who have always benefited from unearned privileges, even when they were unqualified!