So, now, by your logic, if i want to access to public work, I should have fewer chances than any person with some identity characters, even if that person come from (For example) a rich family and I come from a lower economic ladder, even if i get better result in the exam, just because he is LGBTI, black skined, or from any minorie and a quota has to be fulfilled???
The identity characters is the only thing that matters, there cant be other factors right?
Precisely dividing people and treating them differently because of their skin colour, gender, sexual orientation or gender dysphoria is the worst thing to do and it is still discrimination.
I find your ideology repulsive and discriminatory.
I am going to tell you how this problem should be addressed: treat everyone equally, without negative or positive discrimination, and start ignoring their skin colour, identity characteristics, sexual orientation, or gender.
This doesnât happends on my country (And I bet almost everywhere in the West except in google, where males used to gain less than women, and this if it was demonstrated). It is prohibited by and prosecuted by law and no one has been able to demonstrate with real statistics that this is happening.
If you want, I can give you the constitution of my country, although you probably wonât understand it if you donât use a translator, but your argument is fallacious, and has long since been disassembled by numerous studies.
This may happens, for example, in Arabic cultures (to which for some reason the wokes defend so much).
This is nothing new though. These sorts of employment laws have been in place since at least the 80s here in the UK as it is still a known thing that if they are not in place then discriminatory practices would just carry on as before.
As far as I am aware no one has been employed purely because of their indentity, they have to have had some competence within the field prior to being selected. It is after that point that there will be a slight skew in the balance of power away from the status quo in order that those areas of society who had been discriminated against in the past had a slight leg up over those who historically havenât faced those prejudices.
I personally think that ignoring it all and leaving it as used to be is just as problematic.
However that wasnât what I asked. I asked were men paying more taxes on higher earnings or is there a law that states Men pay 21% tax on every 20,000 they earn and women only 19%?
I dont know about UK, isnât even from european union country. Kekw.
I can assure you that this does not happen in my country since the end of dictatorship, except now if you are white male, where now it seems that you can be discriminated without the law being applied.
If you give privileges to those who in the past were discriminated against, even when they are not in the present, you are generating discrimination against the rest of the people, who in the future would be the new âHistorically discriminatedâ
In my country self-employed (autonomous) men pay more taxes than women, regardless of their earnings. Even if the guys earns less, they pays more taxes, just because in the Official document says âMaleâ. And it is not the only place where this is starting to happen.
Is written in the autonomous laws and I could easily demonstrate it to you (Although you will have to use a translator) giving a link of the State official bulletin.
Basically say taxes are reduced by 30% for men up to 30 years of age and for women up to 35. Therefore, at 31, men paya 30% more taxes than women of this age.
âbecause the chromosome XY is opresive (Well, just if you identify as male)â ^^
Thank you for this and I would agree that this system isnât right.
I would still argue that the policy isnât because of any inherent wokeness nor because the XY chromosome is deemed as being oppressive.
This looks like it stems from a time when women were automatically assumed to leave the labour market earlier in order to have children etc and that this was a way to try and encourage them to remain in the labour market and paying taxes. 30% less of something is still better than 100% of nothing.
Not true, this came in 2018 and was and it has been reinforced with the arrival of an ultra-woke government that establishes that the basis of all inequalities is that âstraight white menâ are privileged by birth (Without taking into account the socioeconomic situation of each individual), even when the laws establishes since long ago that we must be equal without discrimination of gender, race, identityâŚ
So they start to create new laws that discriminate specially heteronormative guys based on a series of identity politics. We created an âEquallity ministeryâ (yes, the name is a joke, when they are creating unfair laws) who is responsible for creating such unequallity laws ignoring our own constitution itself
We got laws that establish the labor conciliation and that allow men to be the ones who take care of the children. So this taxes laws are 100% unnecesary.
True. This is how i feel too. And Iâm not joking. Alot of people do. In the name âof inclusivityâ they start to discriminate other people, again based on their skin colour, gender o orientation.
This isnât a case of beliefs. Gender Dysphoria exists. Although I would add that in school my son was taught about all the main religions as part of his education. I canât really see the issue with that either.
How are they discriminating against heteronormative guys? Does this same law apply to gay men as well as women? Do gay men also get a 30% tax reduction until they are 35?
Or is this not actually Woke at all and is a badly thought out law trying to reap as much tax out of people as possible?
