@Mr Krabs ! the caliber of allies in general seems to have been gone down the pan as I've only ever had this convo with one straight person and had it go well in recent years. What did that woman in G-A-Y expect lol ffs. Also, creasing at the
bleeping cowboy hats lol it was like a sea of them at pride. oh and long sharp rainbow nails too haha. half the time they never share any real allyship even online and that's piss easy to do so it speaks volumes. think it's only going to get worse unfortunately )-:
--
re the job app demographic survey:
they do it to try and recruit more inclusively and variedly, ie to hire people from groups that are underrepresented in the company which generally speaking is a good thing IMO. but they often
duck it up with gender* and sex as it looks like they might have in Venus' case. the worst thing is when they don't include sex as a category at all, or don't distinguish between' '"cis"/biological woman/man' and 'trans woman/man' (often where there's a 'gender identity' box). I unfortunately think this distinction is necessary now that the trans stuff is so mainstream for the reasons below (bearing in mind the resistance to 'sex' as a standalone category, i dont think its inclusion alone would solve this problem unfortunately)
i worry about a situation where they just focus on 'gender', don't distinguish between trans and not trans, end up hiring more biological males in a workplace where they are already overrepresented and then feel theyve met a quota for sex equity. this happens in STEM, like my partner works in a medium-sized company in STEM and relatively, a lot of out, self-identified trans women/'nonbinary' males work there. the company published demographic info and men form 76% of the company and nearly 90% of the upper quartile. idek whether trans women are categorised as men or women here - the report uses the terms 'male' and 'female' as adjectives with no reference to which category trans women/men fall into.
whatever an individual's view on trans politics, even if you want to hire more trans people, it's just fact that most if not all trans women receive male socialisation growing up, so hiring biological males in male-dominated fields as the result of an equity initiative aimed at women defeats the point (this is the consequence of not distinguishing btwn trans women and biological/"cis" women), esp w non-binary stuff - informally speaking, half these nb dudes just present like average men anyway, certainly through education and childhood-adolescence, so there is little argument that they wouldnt have received male socialisation in terms of career paths and skill choices. even if ppl in gen think these guys suffered discrimination, they wouldnt have been subjected to the specific & near-universal misogyny that discourages female access to those fields.
my partner's manager will often tell him that the new starter is trans or mentally ill even. this is a GDPR violation and it hints they dont understand much about equity in the context of access policy. some higher ed institutions are divorcing from stonewall & i suspect the issue above may have at least partially informed that decision.
also some of these companies don't include questions on whether you come from a lower income background - i feel this is something they should include as an equity initiative. source of my knowledge is its my job haha. thanks to those who read my essay ahaha