I thought this is considered illegal. Seems like Australia is going backwards.
https://www.seek.com.au/job/76233184?tracking=SHR-WEB-Shared…
Only accepting applicants who identify as female or non binary.
I've reported this job ad to Seek on grounds of discrimination.
@freefall101: I think on average men show more aptitude for logic in all forms, be it mathematical or programmatic. Women achieved higher by changing score weighting to things they have higher aptitude for such as essays and reducing weighting for logic tests/exams.
@EightImmortals: Most of the women I've talked to think there are less women engineers because the men they have to work with in those industries are socially inept, disrespectful, arrogant, probably alcoholics etc (and that's just me lol). Not saying everyone is like that, but the stereotype probably holds.
So you could make a case that a workforce like that excludes those who don't 'fit in' to that culture is discrimination against those with 'alternative values'.
@EightImmortals: I guess a very simplistic person might just see it as discrimination when they do not understand the job and the fact that having a diverse mix of people in an organisation can lead to better solutionising and problem solving. Try thinking a bit more broadly and not being so narrow in your thinking, so you can see that for certain companies to improve their performance, they have studied workforce performance dynamics enough to understand a simple way to get more profit is to bring a bigger variety of thinking in.
You do understand that the right way to fix this is to ensure the female candidate is the best qualified for the job, as well as ensure there is no discrimination against the candidate, don't you? Anything less is just a muddle of different discrimination trying to cancel other discrimination out. If you're only applying the fix at the point of entry to the job, that disadvantaged person has missed out on education necessary for success in the role.
51%, actually!
Hey my friend, have you heard of a strawman argument? You might want to look it up, looks like you're trying to argue something else from the actual topic. :)
But if we did take your argument seriously - if they have an exemption they presumably have a good reason why that's been legally approved, so it wouldn't be problematic no. Unless the board approving it is biased.
So your whole argument is flawed regardless.
I feel like your argument is flawed. Just because something was legally approved doesn't mean it's for the best/had a good reason
@SpainKing: Oh, I didn't realize you could just get legal exemptions for things without providing any reasons or submitting any documentation. Or that if you do provide it, someone just auto approves it.
I'm sure in some minor cases people do this, but I think you'd be a bit daft if you think that occurred here.
@DingoBilly: Well I'm happy to have showed you the light. There are countless cases where the government has allowed things that are negative because there was some form of documentation to back it up as a proposal and get signed off
The Murray Darling River Basin has had tens of millions of fish die in recent years due to runoff from sugar cane plantations. Those plantations aren't illegal businesses and as such have been signed off with many forms of documentation. Why are they legally exempt from the harm they are causing? Because they have documentation and contribute heavily to the state's GDP?
Presidents can get away with murdering people because they have documentation signed off. I don't believe that's a minor case. I'm sure our PM has similar authority
The death penalty used to be common practice at a time when murder was illegal. Why are the people executing others legally exempt? Because there's documentation that said they were and the state needed someone dead? That makes no sense and is why it has been abolished (because good, innocent people died)
Tearing children away from their families was fine if they were indigenous not so long ago. White Australians were exempt
Another case of exemption being a double-edged sword can be found here. I didn't actually know about it until today and I reckon it's worth getting the word out
@SpainKing: Do governments always get it right? No.
Does it follow that a company taking steps to address an organisational bias is problematic? Also no.
Strawwoman argument please.
I identify as female
Username does not checkout
.
Better change your name then.
my pronouns are it and it
Then you should apply, provided you're suitably qualified and actually want the job.
Is there anything else we can help you with?
I identify as 'well experienced'.
Is it technically illegal to identify as female for job applications then identify as male after a short term in the job?
it would be discriminatory to question your change of identification, would it not?
I think it's frowned upon, but probably not illegal; at least not within the realm of being able to prosecute without getting a confession that you tried to commit fraud or that you were knowingly obtaining money by deception.
Look at the VIC police force. They had a bunch of officers (7?) identify as non-binary in order to get the higher allowance for uniforms afforded to female staff.
The Age Article using a 12ft ladder to get over paywall
to help improve gender balance in the workforce???
so much for best person for the job then…..
Male mate hires a male mate? Sweet mate, he must've been the best person for the job. If not, he'll work it out. All good.
Company hires a woman and specifies they must have particular qualifications? REEEE DUHSCRIMUNASHIN
I used to work for a company of a few hundred. The gender split was 80/20 towards men. The industry gender split was roughly 60/40 to men, and applications roughly matched that.
Do you really think the company was hiring the best person for the job? Seemed like bias in recruitment to me.
Didn't you read? A suitably qualified candidates who identify as female or non-binary is the best person for this job.
They must have a DEI target to hit.
In my view, the exemption might make this discrimination legal, but it's still discrimination…
So all the blokes running all the companies got there on merit? Unfortunately hiring bias means people hire people who are like them. They also tend to forgive their transgressions until it becomes so blatant they can’t hide it anymore.
What is wrong is a bunch of women who report poor behaviour and find themselves managed out the door. If Channel 7 and Channel 9 had hired a few more women, rather than men who let the little man do the thinking, they might not be so deeply in shit at the moment. If society was gender and colour blind I would agree with you but it, blatantly, is not.
I've heard some companies deidentify resumes from gender/race etc to ensure there is no bias, thus the best candidate gets picked for the job. This seems like a better solution than just allowing blatant discrimination veiled as 'affirmative action'.
Gender equality means no gender discrimination exists - individually, men & women have equal access to all opportunities (& support). Gender equality does not mean that men & women (collectively) have equal participation in all opportunities (due to biological differences at an aggregate level).
I've heard some companies deidentify resumes from gender/race etc to ensure there is no bias, thus the best candidate gets picked for the job.
How does that work during the interview process? It's great that it gets them in the door, but unless they can somehow do it for the interviews those biases will still exist.
@Miss B: It's a good point. I just don't believe the best way to fight (real or perceived) discrimination is by allowing discrimination…
@The Wololo Wombat: Sometimes companies will target a certain bias as they need a certain type of thinker. When you are trying to solve problems and you have 100 white males there, you are going to get close to the same solution from all of them which is not what you want. If you had a diverse mix of people, you will get different thinking styles and approaches to solutions which may give you a better solution, therefore a competitive advantage and/or more profit. Just as the best group of individuals are not always the best team, the best person for the job may not be the individual who seems best (from a very simple perspective) as you need the best person for the team.
When you are trying to solve problems and you have 100 white males there, you are going to get close to the same solution from all of them
Source? Not all problem solving requires a diverse range of opinions and perspectives, but even when it does, is race and gender really a good proxy for ensuring this diversity? Not age, education, countries worked in, range of professional experiences?
@BobLim: Look up anything to do with designing and developing high-performing teams and you will see a lot of articles that have studied team compositions resulting in a wide understanding of avoiding the same biasing. It is a very simple thing to see in practice as well for teams that are solutionising and solving problems. Team dynamics are very interesting challenge to get right for most situations, and in this case, they may have determined the required thinking required in a team to be a success. They could have easily found they needed other things but they may already be covered. It does make a difference but everyone wants to jump straight on the unfair/wow is me, band wagon.
@Rally Dave: Sure perhaps, but your claim was about the "100 white males" all getting to the same answer in the same way, and that's what I'm asking about. Do you have any evidence of this occurring?
If people forming a team wish to generate a particular mix of qualities and strengths, they can test for this specifically. My understanding is that several companies do this already. A "diverse mix of people" from a problem-solving perspective cannot be directly observed through race and gender - do you refute this? Maybe it's sometimes correlated, but why not just test for what you actually want?
At this point, I'm not yet convinced that having a mix of races and genders is necessarily going to get you a better outcome in a railway signalling design risk assessment for example. A mixture of disciplines, competencies, age, and exposure to other fields or locations seems more likely - these are not measured by race or gender. These people may happen to come from a mix of races and genders, but why should those be the criteria for selection?
Do you discriminate against hiring people who do not have the right to work in Australia?
You need to look up unconscious bias.
Positive discrimination is also perfectly legal. https://humanrights.gov.au/education/employers/quick-guide-d…
BlueScope cares far more about gender equality then they do their employees in general.
Had a friend threatened by female employee on his team with a knife at BlueScope.
They offered to move him to a different team when he reported it.
They are absolutely bending over backwards to keep women and hire more, I don't think its improving the culture.
If that were true your friend should have reported a crime to the police.
He did, even found out she has a record.
yep mining site. too much sausage fest. need more girls.
stop complaining.
OP just need to self-identify as a woman, plus he can go into woman's bathroom.
Have seen it plenty of times before in job ads.
Isn't it better that they outright tell you so you don't waste your time applying when they were never going to accept you?
No, it would be better if they didn't discriminate at all.
@trapper: True. So how do you propose they address the imbalance in their majority male workforce, an imbalance that was reached in part due to, typically, unconscious discrimination?
@banana365: Why do you think the imbalance is a problem?
Gender equality means no gender discrimination exists - individually, men & women have equal access to all opportunities (& support). Gender equality does not mean that men & women (collectively) have equal participation in all opportunities (due to biological differences at an aggregate level).
I've heard some companies deidentify resumes from gender/race etc to ensure there is no bias, thus the best candidate gets picked for the job. This seems like a better solution than just allowing blatant discrimination veild as 'affirmative action'. In my view, those who are upset about this (eg, OP) have very good reasons to be.
The business had to go through the trouble of applying for an exemption to do this. They are doing the right thing by being upfront like thestig says. One less position out of 100s that exist in this industry.
To be going to all this trouble, it must be an absolute sausage fest in theis workplace.
Given the way you've phrased your comment, the company dodged a bullet in not spending the time looking at your resume.
It doesn't mean a law hasn't been broken here.
@mrvaluepack: Which law has been broken of they've being given an exemption from section 89? That's how exemptions work, they exempt people from a specific law Karen.
Yep. 'The alphabets' really is a new low. We're talking about people here, not machines or other inanimate objects.
the alphabets haha, op has already known the answer and is just venting, no way op will change its opinion
Got to love diversity quotas ;) But people keep voting for politicians that enable it, so it will continue to persists until voters wake up !!
Victorians are also are clueless that if a girl is playing with some lego or a boy with a doll, the school can transition them without parents knowing:
https://www.aww.org.au/victoriapolicy
For the ‘particular decision’ of transitioning, parental consent is not required. Indeed the parent might not even be informed by the school of the child’s desire/intention to “transition”/identify as “transgender”. The parent/s might instead be completely cut out of the equation.
For the ‘particular decision’ of transitioning, parental consent is not required. Indeed the parent might not even be informed by the school of the child’s desire/intention to “transition”/identify as “transgender”. The parent/s might instead be completely cut out of the equation.
This is not a quote from a gov or school policy.
This is not a quote from a gov or school policy.
If you say so, directly from the Vic government: https://www2.education.vic.gov.au/pal/lgbtiq-student-support…
If a student is considered a mature minor they can make decisions for themselves without parental consent and should be affirmed in their gender identity at school without a family representative/carer participating in formulating the school management plan.
The teacher that wishes to transition a kid has the discretion as to whether a student is a "mature minor" …
It’s interesting how the actual gov doc reads very differently to the lobby page. This is nothing new. It’s the same for things like accessing Medicare, sexual health, drug and alcohol services. A mature minor can get support and make decisions around their own health and well being whilst having their confidentiality maintained. It’s to prevent harm ,suicide and reduce the risk of DV etc. basically if you say ‘we’re going to tell you parents, youth won’t open up and may hide issues they are facing’ and has nothing to do with bluescope recruitment.
and has nothing to do with bluescope recruitment.
If you say so, as you are the authority on how all teachers behave and interpret vague policy …
@7ekn00: Yes I say so, that BlueScope having one job advertised with diversity criteria (btw they have lots of jobs advertised that don’t have this criteria) has nothing to do with how a school might treat a child that wants to transition gender.
Reading your comments again you say that the school can transition the child, the policy doesn’t say this at all. It says the child (mature minor) can choose to transition themselves and that the school should affirm this. Affirm means to respect their choices by using their chosen pronouns, allowing them to wear a different uniform, access to bathrooms etc. So the school isn’t instigating anything, they are respecting the child. The school can then not tell the parents that the child has expressed these wishes to them, which is a confidentiality or sometimes safety thing. The school is not going round telling the girls rugby team to reconsider their gender identity or anything. Nor are they getting involved in their medical care. It’s just respecting a choice the minor has made for themself, and not necessarily telling the parent.
You do know that girls play with lego and boys play with dolls normally, right?
Do you have any evidence that teachers are forcing kids to transition without their parents knowledge or consent just because they played with a toy from the 'wrong' gender?
You know teachers aren't doctors, right? How exactly do you imagine this 'forced' transitioning occurs at the teacher's whim?
@larndis: Evidence? Are you doubting the Facebook/Twitter posts they are basing their entire angry personality on? How dare you!
@banana365: yeah that website does look pretty legit. better go read the rest and find out what else I should be worrying about
Are you chronically online sir, as someone with kids in school, that is absolutely not the case at all. There are kids at their school identifying as the opposite gender, furries, therians, korblox noobs, and baconheads on any given day of the week, teachers don't have time for what you're describing. And far out you need parental consent to watch a movie at school these days. Please get off tiktok/bitchute/telegram/rumble or whatever platform you've gotten yourself hooked on, it's showing.
Yes, because the link from the Vic government stating their policy is completely irrelevant … whoosh …
but keep voting for it and remember this when your kids are turned against you without your knowledge ;)
I think you might have missed the part where they said there needs to be agreement between the parents and child, and if that cannot be reached, it needs to go through the mature minor process. For a child to be considered a mature minor is a process in itself, and this also happens with the parents knowledge. So none of this happens without anyone knowing anything about it. I don't understand why people have taken this on as a cause to be worried about for kids. As a parent, this isn't even on my radar - I am far more concerned about the impact of social media and for good reason, as this kind of discussion proves.
I don't understand why people have taken this on as a cause to be worried about for kids. As a parent, this isn't even on my radar
If you are a good parent with a close relationship with your children, and they are relatively well-adjusted, then your kids are probably safe from this craziness.
However, not all parents have strong bonds with their children, and not all kids are well-adjusted. Some are a bit unusual and a bit neglected and can be left in a vulnerable place where lunatics can take advantage of them. It's these poor kids that people are worried about.
@trapper: I don't think as a rule that teachers, doctors, psychologists and allied health staff have a collective agenda to secretly change who children are. If people were genuinely worried about vulnerable children, they'd dig a lot deeper than this and possibly be more concerned about the alarming rates of childhood sexual abuse, and the main demographic who perpetrates that. But for some reason, social media has everyone focusing on this issue…
@MessyG: It’s possible to be genuinely worried about multiple threats to children's well-being. Don't dismiss people's concern as non-genuine.
teachers don't have time for what you're describing.
Normal teachers don't, but not all teachers are normal.
What makes you so sure that teachers are operating under this hidden agenda? Do you have any evidence or personal experience?
The only people I know that believe this is a thing don't have kids or anything to do with the school system.
As I asked the other commenter, how would this actually happen? The teacher decides they want the kid to transition, and then what??
The teacher decides they want the kid to transition, and then what
That's not how grooming typically works. A vulnerable child can be manipulated and deceived.
They may come to believe falsehoods they're told, such as "You can be a boy if you want," and other similar statements.
OK, so they groom and convince the child they want to change gender
And you don't see this as a concern? fuking hell…
@trapper: I didn't say it's OK, I'm just trying to understand what you're talking about.
So, what would happen next? How would the teacher organise for the child to transition? Is the transitioning the end goal? I would think there would be other significant concerns in this scenario such as sexual or other abuse.
It's like somebody wrote lyrics to Entrance of the Gladiators
"We have a sub-committee In Defence of Children that specifically focuses on the removing hyper-sexualised school curriculea content and asserting the rights of parents to guide their child free of state ideological indoctrination into gender identity ideology, queer theory, identity marxism or critical race theory."
More QAnon/Pizzagate dog whistling. Yep. Totally legit resource to base any online position on.
Yep, show us your winning reading comprehension where I linked the GOVERNMENT website!
But hey, internet clout chasers and know it alls don't care about accuracy ;)
Just identify as non binary at the interview.
I wonder what their views are on flipping back to default settings after securing the position…
😂
Well when you flip back, they can't fire you. That would be an unlawful ground of termination!
I expect to see this featured on lifehacks in the future haha.
Maybe they can just apply for exception to that law too!
Why flip back when you can claim benefits for either gender (I don't know any particular benefit for males though)?
Just tell the HR or recruiting people you want to keep this information private.
Boss: "What do you mean, you now identify back as male?"
You: "Hey man, it's fluid. Don't bully me plz or sue you".
Flip their own rules back on them.
itvaluepack instead of mrvaluepack
You mean them/they.
Thatvaluepack has a better ring to it.
Better still, also throw in indigenous and the job is certainly yours.
Can confirm, I know someone who has done this and it’s worked.
Also invisible, and tell them your pronouns are who, where
it doesn't matter to HR, you can identify as a potato for all they care. they can tick it off to meet their KPIs
Imagine doing that and still not getting the job.
@dowhatuwant2:
You mean there's a more detailed nuance to the situation than "two negatives don't make a positive"?
It's almost like that's a completely meaningless answer. You lack reading comprehension if you didn't get my point.
So you're telling me girls get better marks, yet achieve at a "higher level" than girls? Based on what imaginary metric? It's long been recognised that the gender difference in STEM cognitive abilities isn't there. Programming used to be dominated by women and the change was due to the social perception of coding and nothing to do with men being "better" at it, but the idea that men were creative geniuses where doing repetitive labour is a womans job.
Do you think men are born programmers or something? We're not talking olympic runners, there's no physical difference here, purely cognitive. And I've yet to see any study beyond 1950 that pretends that men are some kind of cognitive elite.