So, obviously, people don’t generally change their legal gender for an advantage somewhere. But if they do, that’s a pretty good sign, not that it’s too easy to change your gender, but that there’s a gender bias in the law.
So arguably, the easier it is to change your legal gender, the less of a problem gender-based affirmative action is. Conservatives must love this! End liberal overreach in one easy step!
I agree. The Daily Mail no doubt uses this as a way to say “legally changing your gender should be harder”, but that’s fixing the wrong problem. Gender fluidity isn’t the problem, gender inequality is.
Gender should be as unimportant as eye color in most things in life. If your system breaks from someone changing their gender, you need to fix your system.
Thing is, There are less women in STEM, there are less women in management position etc. Therefor, either women are less interested/worse at these things (which is the conservative view) or society itself treats women differently than men. The rational behind affirmative action and programs geared towards women isn’t that women are less skilled and therefore need more help, rather that society makes it harder for a woman achieve the same as a similarly skilled man. By treating women differently we can help level the playing field.
Also, making gender “as unimportant as eye color in most things in life” is a completely unrealistic goal in the near future even in the most liberal countries in the world. We can (and do) strive to reach it, but that’s not a viable solution for issues we have right now.
And you know what? Legally changing your gender SHOULD be harder than filling a form. Someone who’s transgender should have no problem showing that’s what they are. The thing is to make sure the legal process is done respectfully, without making the person feel like they’re being interrogated.
[…], there are less women in management position etc. Therefor, either women are less interested/worse at these things (which is the conservative view) or society itself treats women differently than men.
For management its actually a quite complex problem. First of all, women themselves seem to underestimate themself more than men and so don’t apply for higher jobs(e.g. Manager) since they underestimate their skills and potential thinking, they aren’t able to suit such a role, even tho they could. At the same time the manager(etc.) Are mostly males, so the stereotypical view of a manager iis a guy, which may also lead to women not believing in themselves. When women do apply for a higher role they often get overlooked. They get judged much more critical in terms of skills, while their potential often gets overlooked. This causes female applicants to often not get accepted for said positions. This is also one of the reasons, why women are less likely(around 14%) to get a promotion. Last but not least the typical Charakter traits that a manager needs, are often associated with masculinity(e.g. Strength, endurance, rationality,…).
Yeah, there’s a similar issue from the other side (at least in my country) - Men will usually apply for a job if they don’t meet all the requirements, while women won’t tend to do so.
Going on a tangent off “The traits that people typically associate with success in leadership, such as assertiveness and strength" (from the article), that almost sounds like something form the 50s - “Look here Johnson, I need those forms, and I need them yesterday, now get moving!”. Traits I associate with leadership (at least in high-skill modern work place) are good communication and motivation skills, ability to plan ahead and multi-tasking/ability to prioritize. Sure, once in a while a manager has to bang their fist against the table, but the real skill isn’t in banging on the table as hard as you can, it’s the ability get what you want without needing to do so in the first place. Point being that, if anything, womenarebettermanagers.
So arguably, the easier it is to change your legal gender, the less of a problem gender-based affirmative action is.
Gender-based public sector affirmative action exists to counterbalance discrimination in the private sector. I would argue that becoming trans to undermine gender-AA is penny wise and pound foolish, unless you were already tending towards that inclination.
But what I’m seeing here is “I’m changing my gender but only for the purposes of gaming the system, then I expect you to recognize me as my original gender again”. And that’s on par with carrying a pair of crutches in your trunk so you can park in handicapped spaces.
You don’t really want to take on the burden of being recognized as a woman. You just want to pocket a benefit in the public sector and then go back to your privileged position in the private sector.
So, obviously, people don’t generally change their legal gender for an advantage somewhere. But if they do, that’s a pretty good sign, not that it’s too easy to change your gender, but that there’s a gender bias in the law.
So arguably, the easier it is to change your legal gender, the less of a problem gender-based affirmative action is. Conservatives must love this! End liberal overreach in one easy step!
I agree. The Daily Mail no doubt uses this as a way to say “legally changing your gender should be harder”, but that’s fixing the wrong problem. Gender fluidity isn’t the problem, gender inequality is.
Gender should be as unimportant as eye color in most things in life. If your system breaks from someone changing their gender, you need to fix your system.
Thing is, There are less women in STEM, there are less women in management position etc. Therefor, either women are less interested/worse at these things (which is the conservative view) or society itself treats women differently than men. The rational behind affirmative action and programs geared towards women isn’t that women are less skilled and therefore need more help, rather that society makes it harder for a woman achieve the same as a similarly skilled man. By treating women differently we can help level the playing field.
Also, making gender “as unimportant as eye color in most things in life” is a completely unrealistic goal in the near future even in the most liberal countries in the world. We can (and do) strive to reach it, but that’s not a viable solution for issues we have right now.
And you know what? Legally changing your gender SHOULD be harder than filling a form. Someone who’s transgender should have no problem showing that’s what they are. The thing is to make sure the legal process is done respectfully, without making the person feel like they’re being interrogated.
For management its actually a quite complex problem. First of all, women themselves seem to underestimate themself more than men and so don’t apply for higher jobs(e.g. Manager) since they underestimate their skills and potential thinking, they aren’t able to suit such a role, even tho they could. At the same time the manager(etc.) Are mostly males, so the stereotypical view of a manager iis a guy, which may also lead to women not believing in themselves. When women do apply for a higher role they often get overlooked. They get judged much more critical in terms of skills, while their potential often gets overlooked. This causes female applicants to often not get accepted for said positions. This is also one of the reasons, why women are less likely(around 14%) to get a promotion. Last but not least the typical Charakter traits that a manager needs, are often associated with masculinity(e.g. Strength, endurance, rationality,…).
Source: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20220222-proof-verus-potential-problem
I can only suggest that article. Its very good.
Yeah, there’s a similar issue from the other side (at least in my country) - Men will usually apply for a job if they don’t meet all the requirements, while women won’t tend to do so.
Going on a tangent off “The traits that people typically associate with success in leadership, such as assertiveness and strength" (from the article), that almost sounds like something form the 50s - “Look here Johnson, I need those forms, and I need them yesterday, now get moving!”. Traits I associate with leadership (at least in high-skill modern work place) are good communication and motivation skills, ability to plan ahead and multi-tasking/ability to prioritize. Sure, once in a while a manager has to bang their fist against the table, but the real skill isn’t in banging on the table as hard as you can, it’s the ability get what you want without needing to do so in the first place. Point being that, if anything, women are better managers.
It does but it still is something people associate with managers.
Gender-based public sector affirmative action exists to counterbalance discrimination in the private sector. I would argue that becoming trans to undermine gender-AA is penny wise and pound foolish, unless you were already tending towards that inclination.
But what I’m seeing here is “I’m changing my gender but only for the purposes of gaming the system, then I expect you to recognize me as my original gender again”. And that’s on par with carrying a pair of crutches in your trunk so you can park in handicapped spaces.
You don’t really want to take on the burden of being recognized as a woman. You just want to pocket a benefit in the public sector and then go back to your privileged position in the private sector.