Transgender person wins compo for job interview

suicide_circus

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Let me take a wild guess - these people are mostly middle-aged, middle-class white males?

whats with the race baiting?

One eyed Jack

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Let me take a wild guess - these people are mostly middle-aged, middle-class white males?

That’s hardly a wild guess, the demographics of the site would indicate that the vast majority of users are indeed middle-aged, middle-class males. I don’t know and don’t particularly care to speculate as to anyone’s race or ethnicity though, and it’s not something which has been asked for in any site surveys I’ve seen.

I’m certain however that people’s opinions don’t delineate along such clearly defined lines as appear to be employed by people who practice identity politics.

Jackman25

suicide_circus wrote: »

whats with the race baiting?

He got caught out with the rather naive supposition that employers don't google people which of course the vast majority of them do, so needs to inject wokeness from a different angle.

One eyed Jack

Jackman25 wrote: »

He got caught out with the rather naive supposition that employers don't google people which of course the vast majority of them do so needs to inject wokeness from a different angle.

I’d love to see some evidence to support this claim. I find it incredible to think that the vast majority of employers are doing anything of the sort, particularly given the resources involved in doing so - I don’t imagine most employers either have the time, the inclination, or the interest to be looking up candidates on google. I’d be perfectly willing to accept that a tiny minority of employers might conduct their business in such a way alright, but I don’t believe the majority of employers would be able to. It’s far more likely they would only be concerned with circumstances where an employees behaviour reflects negatively on the organisation.

KiKi III

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re more than welcome to drop the idea that because someone makes a claim, they are automatically entitled to be believed. It’s certainly far more liberating than the idea that discrimination is as prevalent as some people need other people to believe. That’s a rather dystopian perspective of society.

I don’t hold the belief system you’ve attributed to me Jack.

Someone saying something doesn’t make it true, but automatically assuming it’s not true is a fallacy too.

I listen to the details and make up my mind based on my experience of the world. I consider it reasonably likely the trans woman here was discriminated against based on the facts we have.

The rush to misgender her on the thread seems to back this up, in my view.

AndrewJRenko

Jackman25 wrote: »

He got caught out with the rather naive supposition that employers don't google people which of course the vast majority of them do, so needs to inject wokeness from a different angle.

Just for the record, I never supposed anything about whether employers Google people or not. I simply commented on the effectiveness of that approach and the outcome for certain employees. So I'm not the one injecting from angles.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s hardly a wild guess, the demographics of the site would indicate that the vast majority of users are indeed middle-aged, middle-class males. I don’t know and don’t particularly care to speculate as to anyone’s race or ethnicity though, and it’s not something which has been asked for in any site surveys I’ve seen.

I’m certain however that people’s opinions don’t delineate along such clearly defined lines as appear to be employed by people who practice identity politics.

Yes, opinions can vary, but it's a fair bet that most of those people who say that discrimination doesn't happen are the people who in general, don't experience discrimination.

Ironicname

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Yes, opinions can vary, but it's a fair bet that most of those people who say that discrimination doesn't happen are the people who in general, don't experience discrimination.

So we should discount the opinions of people who disagree with discrimination being as prevalent as is reported because they aren't discriminated against in general.

Sounds a little discriminatory...

One eyed Jack

KiKi III wrote: »

I don’t hold the belief system you’ve attributed to me Jack.

Someone saying something doesn’t make it true, but automatically assuming it’s not true is a fallacy too.

I listen to the details and make up my mind based on my experience of the world. I consider it reasonably likely the trans woman here was discriminated against based on the facts we have.

The rush to misgender her on the thread seems to back this up, in my view.

That’s fair enough, I’m not going to contradict your opinion on the basis that the evidence you have suggests something which I don’t agree with, as the way I see it there are only ever a handful of people on threads regarding discrimination that outright deny the possibility of discrimination having taken place.

As an aside, is there any evidence of this persons preferred pronouns or are people assuming their pronouns? I personally wouldn’t accuse anyone of misgendering someone when they make assumptions of a persons gender, that’s why I have used ‘they’ throughout this thread as opposed to assuming that the person prefers either masculine or feminine pronouns.

To accuse someone of misgendering someone on the basis of how they see someone, and present that as evidence of discrimination because they don’t agree with what you see, sets an unreasonably low standard IMO.

bucketybuck

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’d love to see some evidence to support this claim. I find it incredible to think that the vast majority of employers are doing anything of the sort, particularly given the resources involved in doing so .

The resources involved in throwing a name into Google and seeing what comes up on the front page?

suicide_circus

bucketybuck wrote: »

The resources involved in throwing a name into Google and seeing what comes up on the front page?

that is literally all that's involved. why people find this outlandish is beyond me.

One eyed Jack

bucketybuck wrote: »

The resources involved in throwing a name into Google and seeing what comes up on the front page?

If I throw my name into google, I don’t come up on the first page (there are 98 results for my name on LinkedIn). Why you imagine an employer would waste resources on such a time consuming endeavour to profile candidates is beyond me tbh. There would only be a small number of employers would have the resources to do it, and an even smaller number of employers again who would consider it an effective use of their time, and an even smaller number again who would simply outsource background checks on potential candidates to a company which provide that service specifically.

In this particular circumstance, you’re having a laugh if you think any employer searches on google as a means of doing a background check on candidates looking for seasonal employment in the retail sector. That’s not to dismiss the possibility of course of some entry level jumped up jobsworth taking it upon themselves to manually sift through application forms and peruse the usual social media channels in the hopes of a juicy tidbit of information.

suicide_circus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If I throw my name into google, I don’t come up on the first page (there are 98 results for my name on LinkedIn). Why you imagine an employer would waste resources on such a time consuming endeavour to profile candidates is beyond me tbh. There would only be a small number of employers would have the resources to do it, and an even smaller number of employers again who would consider it an effective use of their time, and an even smaller number again who would simply outsource background checks on potential candidates to a company which provide that service specifically.

In this particular circumstance, you’re having a laugh if you think any employer searches on google as a means of doing a background check on candidates looking for seasonal employment in the retail sector. That’s not to dismiss the possibility of course of some entry level jumped up jobsworth taking it upon themselves to manually sift through application forms and peruse the usual social media channels in the hopes of a juicy tidbit of information.

what do you think interns are for?

KiKi III

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If I throw my name into google, I don’t come up on the first page (there are 98 results for my name on LinkedIn). Why you imagine an employer would waste resources on such a time consuming endeavour to profile candidates is beyond me tbh. There would only be a small number of employers would have the resources to do it, and an even smaller number of employers again who would consider it an effective use of their time, and an even smaller number again who would simply outsource background checks on potential candidates to a company which provide that service specifically.

In this particular circumstance, you’re having a laugh if you think any employer searches on google as a means of doing a background check on candidates looking for seasonal employment in the retail sector. That’s not to dismiss the possibility of course of some entry level jumped up jobsworth taking it upon themselves to manually sift through application forms and peruse the usual social media channels in the hopes of a juicy tidbit of information.

If you had a conviction that made the national news it would show up on page 1 more than likely.

One eyed Jack

suicide_circus wrote: »

what do you think interns are for?

Doing actual work, as opposed to doing background checks on their potential replacements :pac:

suicide_circus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Doing actual work, as opposed to doing background checks on their potential replacements :pac:

there's only so much tea they can make

Ironicname

suicide_circus wrote:

what do you think interns are for?

Ask bill clinton

One eyed Jack

KiKi III wrote: »

If you had a conviction that made the national news it would show up on page 1 more than likely.

That’s certainly a possibility alright, but the point I’m making is that it’s not a practice that anything even close to the majority of employers engage in. Employers generally don’t have any reason to look for reasons not to employ candidates who apply for a role. It’s an incredibly time consuming process and most employers simply don’t have those kinds of resources to dedicate to looking for reasons not to hire a person.

In any case the person we’re talking about here has already secured alternative employment -


Ms Moore has since found another job outside of retail.

Their current employer must have been remiss in allocating funds to the jobsworth department to do google searches on their employees.

AndrewJRenko

Ironicname wrote: »

So we should discount the opinions of people who disagree with discrimination being as prevalent as is reported because they aren't discriminated against in general.

Sounds a little discriminatory...

So should we discount the opinions of people who haven't had cancer who disagree with cancer being as prevalent as reported?

Augme

Eric Cartman wrote: »

+1 , in this case most employers are sick of this kind of 'woke' thinking. I can't think of a faster way to get your cv binned these days than doing a gender studies masters or similar, in terms of background checks, multiple recruiters and employers have illustrated to me cases where having your twitter account bio state pronouns or retweeting any of this faux outrage / woke culture crap will have you at the bottom of the interview list .

most employers are not recruiting politicians, they do not want 'culture shift' , they don't want HR's job made harder, they want a good fit to their existing culture which doesn't have these hangups.

If they are recruiting lads for building sites, this is probably true. But most highly desired office based jobs, the above is complete bollocks.

suicide_circus

Augme wrote: »

If they are recruiting lads for building sites, this is probably true. But most highly desired office based jobs, the above is complete bollocks.

the person this thread is about was going for menial work but yes for high flyers people with an ability to change a culture would be more desirable

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

bucketybuck wrote: »

The resources involved in throwing a name into Google and seeing what comes up on the front page?

suicide_circus wrote: »

that is literally all that's involved. why people find this outlandish is beyond me.

Yeah, I’m quite amused at the naivety of a few forum members on this score. It doesn’t take up much time or resources at all. Very little, in fact. The closest person to me to employ this tactic is my husband and the things he has described finding on google before about prospective candidates would have not even taken five minutes to find. They were probably idle tea-break searches half the time too.

But, sure, look, if people don’t want to believe us, let them off.

Ironicname

AndrewJRenko wrote:

So should we discount the opinions of people who haven't had cancer who disagree with cancer being as prevalent as reported?

Erm.... What? Of course we shouldn't. That's my point.

bucketybuck

Do people really think we mean a 2 hour detective session searching for every possible reference to the candidate?

For gods sake, all you do is throw the name into Google, maybe the address or something else from the cv as well to narrow the search, then see what comes up on the front page. If you spot the person straight away, grand, have a look at the LinkedIn or Facebook page and form an impression. If nothing jumps out straight away then fine, spend no more time on it.

That's literally it. Its ridiculous that some people cant wrap their heads around how uncomplicated it all is, why on earth does it even need to be explained?

One eyed Jack

bucketybuck wrote: »

Do people really think we mean a 2 hour detective session searching for every possible reference to the candidate?

For gods sake, all you do is throw the name into Google, maybe the address or something else from the cv as well to narrow the search, then see what comes up on the front page. If you spot the person straight away, grand, have a look at the LinkedIn or Facebook page and form an impression. If nothing jumps out straight away then fine, spend no more time on it.

That's literally it. Its ridiculous that some people cant wrap their heads around how uncomplicated it all is, why on earth does it even need to be explained?

No I’m prepared to accept that the idea is generally nothing more than a two minute tea-break effort with a handful of candidates as ODB appears to be suggesting. What I’m not prepared to accept is the notion that “most employers” do any such thing, and “my husband does it” is called anecdotal evidence, hardly sufficient evidence to support the claim that most employers do it.

It’s not naive to question that claim, I have no doubt that there are a minority of employers who do it, and it’s far more likely that by employers I mean some as I said entry level jumped up jobsworth, or even as another poster suggested earlier - some employers have interns do it, but, questioning the claim that most employers engage in that sort of nonsense when screening potential candidates is hardly naive.

Believing such a claim when there isn’t any credible evidence there to support it, is what is naive, and I have no doubt there will be some people who make the claim head straight for google to search for evidence to support their claim (no doubt their google skills are better than mine), without the slightest hint of irony or acknowledgement that what they are doing is commonly known as confirmation bias.

Present independent evidence to support the claim, otherwise it would be just as naive as those people who expect people to believe that discrimination is more prevalent than it is in reality, because they say so, and they expect that’s sufficient evidence to convince anyone but themselves. I wouldn’t be surprised if it were sufficient to convince someone who already believed it to be true. I would be surprised if it were sufficient to convince anyone who questioned the claim based upon the lack of sufficient and credible independent supporting evidence.

It’s not that I don’t want to believe, it’s that I require evidence before I am convinced that the claim is believable. “My husband does it” is hardly credible and sufficient evidence to support the claim that most employers do it. I take it that’s not a difficult concept to wrap your head around either.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No I’m prepared to accept that the idea is generally nothing more than a two minute tea-break effort with a handful of candidates as ODB appears to be suggesting. What I’m not prepared to accept is the notion that “most employers” do any such thing, and “my husband does it” is called anecdotal evidence, hardly sufficient evidence to support the claim that most employers do it.

Ah, Jack, in my second post on the topic, I acknowledged that I was telling anecdotes.

Anyhoo, believe what you like. People will continue checking up on prospective candidates either way.

Benoconnor80

Bit of intellectual fascism on this thread. If I speak I'll get in trouble.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

bucketybuck wrote: »

Do people really think we mean a 2 hour detective session searching for every possible reference to the candidate?

For gods sake, all you do is throw the name into Google, maybe the address or something else from the cv as well to narrow the search, then see what comes up on the front page. If you spot the person straight away, grand, have a look at the LinkedIn or Facebook page and form an impression. If nothing jumps out straight away then fine, spend no more time on it.

That's literally it. Its ridiculous that some people cant wrap their heads around how uncomplicated it all is, why on earth does it even need to be explained?

Buckety, the two main doubters are two of the biggest wafflers on this website. It doesn’t really matter what the topic is, they won’t back down. So it’s not worth wasting much energy on.

One eyed Jack

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Ah, Jack, in my second post on the topic, I acknowledged that I was telling anecdotes.

Anyhoo, believe what you like. People will continue checking up on prospective candidates either way.

Erm, thanks, I don’t think it’s unusual that anyone believes what they like and casts doubt upon what they don’t like and aren’t prepared to accept, like the idea that a person can change their sex - the people who already believe that are entitled to believe what they like too, but when they attempt to convince other people that it’s possible, the bar for evidence goes up exponentially :pac:

Just like you point out that people will of course continue to check on prospective candidates either way, it’s similar to sufficiently muddying the waters as claiming that people will continue to change their sex. I’m not questioning that. I’m questioning whether it’s something which most employers do, in the same way as I would find anyone’s claim that humans had developed the ability to change their sex incredible.

Is anyone who doesn’t believe that being naive too, in your opinion?

One eyed Jack

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Buckety, the two main doubters are two of the biggest wafflers on this website. It doesn’t really matter what the topic is, they won’t back down. So it’s not worth wasting much energy on.

And yet it was you who pointed out to someone else earlier that people are still entitled to question things.

Double standard how are ya?

Benoconnor80

So whats the difference between a transvestite and transsexual?