▲ 21 points
back
21 comments
> a stupid bald c** and threatened to deck me
The "harassment" part makes sense at least.
> and it related to the claimant’s sex
I'd have assumed "sexual" meant relating to sex (intercourse), rather than relating to sexes (male/female).
I think the relevant act would be: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26
> 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.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. The statement has nothing to do with anything sexual. Unless "sexual harassment" has lately been redefined to mean "harassment based on sex"
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.
There's a difference between sexual behaviour and gendered insults, that's my point. Or no?
2nd kings 2:
23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
So basically, "little children" from the city called him "bald head" and god sent 2 she bears out of the woods to slaughter 42 children.
Now that's a god I like.
Another way to view it, from the observations relayed, is that somebody was called "bald head" and they replied with a curse. Coincidentally, 42 children couldn't escape two rather quick bears. Correlation does not imply causation, right? :^)
> 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.
> it'd obviously be sexual harassment no?
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).
But alopecia, although affecting more men, also affect some women so it's not an exclusively male characteristic..
Neither is wearing skirts or dresses. Some men wear them happily by choice, but it’s still seen predominantly as an expression of femininity. Social and legal rules aren’t built to be true without exception.
Once as a thought experiment I tried to determine what characteristics you could use to say unequivocally someone is male or female and it proved to be impossible. There is an exception to everything, so it’s best just to ask or be told.
Over here in America be like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB-wmOYelnM
Shaving my head now
Another case of judges writing their own laws.
Isn’t that a feature of the british legal system?
It's a feature[a] of any common law legal system. It just has a less catchy name: precendent/case law.
[a]: Whether it's a feature to you or not doesn't change that it's a feature of the 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.
Does calling someone fat also count?