21–27 of 27 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t that a feature of the british legal system?
Judges are not meant to write laws. There is deciding a new precedent in the application of existing law. And then there's redefining 'sexual harassment' to mean whatever you want to get the same level of punishment for things you think deserve it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'd have assumed "sexual" meant relating to sex (intercourse), rather than relating to sexes (male/female) No, sexual harassment is any form of it that references the sexes (male/female), otherwise garden variety misogyny (e.g. "women are bad at X", "X is bad at Y, because she's a woman") wouldn't be considered sexual harassment.
But "women are bad at X" is not 'sexual harassment'. Misogyny is not identical to sexual harassment, they are two different things with some overlap. EDIT: would downvoters (or downvoter + socks) like to explain their disagreement? I'm happy to be corrected.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But "women are bad at X" is not 'sexual harassment'. Misogyny is not identical to sexual harassment, they are two different things with some overlap. EDIT: would downvoters (or downvoter + socks) like to explain their disagreement? I'm happy to be corrected.
Saying "women are bad at X" isn't necessarily sexual harassment; It's just misogyny. But if you said it to a woman, it would be sexual harassment.
> Finn claimed that he was called a “bald c---” and was also threatened by his shift supervisor, Jamie King, in a dispute in July 2019. Why does it need to be sexual harassment? It's obviously harassment either way.
It's sexual because it related to a prominent quality of one sex: badlness in men. If the genders were different and 'she' was called a 'skirted c---' it'd obviously be sexual harassment no? Having something you can't change (or is part of your gender identity) be used as part of a harassing statement makes it worse than a usual insult.
No? I wouldn’t refer to that as sexual harassment, and I would be confused if someone did.
I wonder if there’s some cultural difference here (given other expressed confusion in this thread), in my experience “sexual harassment” refers to harassment of a sexual (intercourse) nature, not a sexual (sex — or gender I suppose) nature. So referring to someone’s genitals could be sexual harassment, but referring to someone’s X or Y chromosome wouldn’t be.
(If you said “short skirted” to imply promiscuity, say, then sure. But if you said “dangly earinged” then definitely not despite dangly earrings probably being more associated with women).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But "women are bad at X" is not 'sexual harassment'. Misogyny is not identical to sexual harassment, they are two different things with some overlap. EDIT: would downvoters (or downvoter + socks) like to explain their disagreement? I'm happy to be corrected.
Saying "women are bad at X" isn't necessarily sexual harassment; It's just misogyny. But if you said it to a woman, it would be sexual harassment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'd have assumed "sexual" meant relating to sex (intercourse), rather than relating to sexes (male/female) No, sexual harassment is any form of it that references the sexes (male/female), otherwise garden variety misogyny (e.g. "women are bad at X", "X is bad at Y, because she's a woman") wouldn't be considered sexual harassment.
But "women are bad at X" is not 'sexual harassment'. Misogyny is not identical to sexual harassment, they are two different things with some overlap. EDIT: would downvoters (or downvoter + socks) like to explain their disagreement? I'm happy to be corrected.