Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?

[ZrByte]

Originally Posted by kronas

this issue is not about gay people, its about whether males can wear earings, if female officers can wear them on duty i do NOT see any reason to discriminate against males for wearing them.

I agree, the original issue was not about sexual preferenence, however this was the only reason towny came up with to justify the discrimination. I have been trying to point out how flawed and misguided this is.

I disagree slightly with what you say though, I think niether sex should be allowed to wear them, as said earlier they are impractical and dangerous to the job.

[kronas]

Originally Posted by danielf

The link is about discrimination against gay people:

no its gay men who raised the issue as it being discrimination against them, i fail to see that, its discriminatory against men, it applies to men doesent it ?

[ZrByte]

Originally Posted by Salu

Maybe we should allow them to wear skirts. Some may want to? Are we discriminating if we don't?

Yes, we are discriminating if we dont, however there doesnt seem to be demand for male officers to wear skirts.
Its for this reason that most companies are opting for the unisex uniform, so that someone in this situation wouldnt be able to claim discrimination, as it should be in my opinion.
Where I work we have one main uniform, yet the ladies get a different one (aswel as the standard one) as such the female staff get more uniform than the males, I think that is discrimination however I have no interest in wearing a blouse/skirt so im willing to let it slip for now

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by Salu

Maybe we should allow them to wear skirts. Some may want to? Are we discriminating if we don't?

Yes.

The aerodynamics of a skirt may assist them in running after a criminal in providing a similar lift as a hovercraft.

So female police officers don't wear skirts?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by kronas

no its gay men who raised the issue as it being discrimination against them, i fail to see that, its discriminatory against men, it applies to men doesent it ?

Sorry, we misunderstand each other I think. The original issue was discrimination against gays, which was the accusation made against the police (see my quote in my previous post). If you feel there is a wider issue here, that's fine, but that is not the 'issue' the original case is about. Not that it matters much really

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ZrByte

How is it any more appropriate for a women to wear an earing to a man?? exept by an outdated and discriminatory standard?
At the same time a butch, skinheaded woman may be percieved as a thug/lesbian (regardless of the earing) should skinheaded women be discriminated against for the same reason as you and towny have stated???

Once again people are taking equality to the extreme - we are talking about the police here.

So if I wanted to be silly and take the same stance as you, I suppose it would be alright for male officers to were a skirt as their uniform

I suppose it it would be fine and dandy for a male officer to wear eye make up and lipstick??????

And yes when it comes to the police it is more acceptble for a female officer to wear a stud earing, and it is unacceptable for a male officer to wear stud earings.

Police are there to protect and serve not worry about fashion items.

[kronas]

Originally Posted by ZrByte

I agree, the original issue was not about sexual preferenence, however this was the only reason towny came up with to justify the discrimination. I have been trying to point out how flawed and misguided this is.

you cannot justify discrimination based on sexual preference, that is wrong, however disallowing males to wear earings because the opposite sex are allowed to is also discrimination.............

Originally Posted by ZrByte

I disagree slightly with what you say though, I think niether sex should be allowed to wear them, as said earlier they are impractical and dangerous to the job.

we agree to disagree then, there is no harm really in them, apart from people looking at others and judging them by thier looks........

[kronas]

Originally Posted by danielf

Sorry, we misunderstand each other I think. The original issue was discrimination against gays

yes so the 'article and gay associations claim......

Originally Posted by danielf

which was the accusation made against the police (see my quote in my previous post)

i dismissed that in the post you quoted previously.......

Originally Posted by danielf

If you feel there is a wider issue here, that's fine, but that is not the 'issue' the original case is about. Not that it matters much really

no as i stated 'i fail to see the issue' with regards to the rule being discrimantory against gays, but i think it is to men.

[ZrByte]

Originally Posted by kronas

you cannot justify discrimination based on sexual preference, that is wrong, however disallowing males to wear earings because the opposite sex are allowed to is also discrimination.............

I know, thats what I have been saying

we agree to disagree then, there is no harm really in them, apart from people looking at others and judging them by thier looks........

Except in the example that Defiant stated earlier....

Originally Posted by Defiant

What doe's the female officer do to help her colleague out when her ear has been ripped open because these ear rings were caught up

Just to add, the earing could also have been pulled on in a scuffle, not just caught on something.

[ZrByte]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Once again people are taking equality to the extreme - we are talking about the police here.

So if I wanted to be silly and take the same stance as you, I suppose it would be alright for male officers to were a skirt as their uniform

I suppose it it would be fine and dandy for a male officer to wear eye make up and lipstick??????

And yes when it comes to the police it is more acceptble for a female officer to wear a stud earing, and it is unacceptable for a male officer to wear stud earings.

Police are there to protect and serve not worry about fashion items.

I think I have allready answered this, as have others but what the hell....
It is discriminatory to deny men to wear exactly the same as females if they so choose, I think its only due to the lack of demand due to the stigma attatched to such things that this hasnt become and issue by now.
I actually dont think male officers should wear earings though, even though my stance would indicate I do. I do however think niether sex should and a unisex uniform should be instated.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by kronas

no as i stated 'i fail to see the issue' with regards to the rule being discrimantory against gays, but i think it is to men.

Yes, that was the point I was trying to make. Your personal opinion is that there is a wider issue, and my point was that the original allegations against the police were for discrimination against gays. But, as I said, it's not important.

[kronas]

Originally Posted by ZrByte

I know, thats what I have been saying

yep adding my input on the ludicrousy of the argument to think its only gays being discrminated......

Originally Posted by ZrByte

Except in the example that Defiant stated earlier....

i did read that, but i dont think it would be a major issue

[kronas]

Originally Posted by ZrByte

I think I have allready answered this, as have others but what the hell....
It is discriminatory to deny men to wear exactly the same as females if they so choose, I think its only due to the lack of demand due to the stigma attatched to such things that this hasnt become and issue by now.

the stigma is what is defined as being the norm.......ie women wear earings men dont, that is not the case, and does raise the issue of why exactly men are not allowed to wear them......

[ZrByte]

Originally Posted by kronas

yep adding my input on the ludicrousy of the argument to think its only gays being discrminated......

Ah, yes I see now

i did read that, but i dont think it would be a major issue

This is true, it probably wouldnt be a major isssue however there is an issue no matter how minor it is, and the safety of the officers concerned should be a factor no matter how minimal the chance of this happening is (Within a reasonable standard, i.e. if it could only happen if the officer was caught in an aligator pit at an evil genious lair then this could be ignored, however the chances of this happening are far greater than that as you know )

Originally Posted by ZrByte

I really dont see how my reasoning is flawed, you basicly said in your first post that a good reason for discriminating against men wearing earings is that some people from older generations may make mental accusations about thier sexuality and as such would find them unapproachable (sounds very biggoted to me)

ala, this sentence...

why should what people think about a mans sexual preference matter to his occupation?

you basicly said in your first post that it is ok to discriminate to satisfy the small minded minority (i.e. those who think that males who wear earings are gay, what a silly concept). so by the same reasoning it is ok to disallow black people on the police force, just to satisfy the racist few, you say this is different because a black man cannot and shouldnt have to change his skin colour, well by the same arguement a man cannot choose what gender he is (and shouldnt have to) just so he can wear an earing. We live in an age of equality and what applies to women should apply to men in equally.
The scale of the issue should not make a difference to the discrimination.

If there is a good enough (practical) arguement for this discrimination then fair enough however, satisying bigotted, small minded individuals is not and should never be a good enough reason.

OK, so we're going to have to compare what I'm actually saying with what you claim I'm saying.

To kick off, I originally said:

but for a great many older people an ear-ring in a man's ear says a whole lot of things about him that might lessen or destroy their trust in him and his authority. - towny

which you interpreted as:

you basicly said in your first post that a good reason for discriminating against men wearing earings is that some people from older generations may make mental accusations about thier sexuality - zrbyte

and I said:

It is not appropriate to expect these people to change their thinking to accommodate policemen who want to wear ear rings. It is the policeman who is the public servant and it is his duty to be accessible and approachable to all sections of society. - towny

which you interpreted as:

you basicly said in your first post that it is ok to discriminate to satisfy the small minded minority (i.e. those who think that males who wear earings are gay, what a silly concept - zrbyte

As you can see when you put our posts side by side, I said nothing at all about sexuality. As a matter of fact, the ruling by thse who have introduced the new dress code said nothing about sexuality either. It is certain un-named gay police officers, who have not even talked directly to the BBC, who are 'said to be' making a sexuality issue out of this. In my original post I complained that some people insist on looking for anti-gay discrimination where there is none. What you are saying really just proves this.

Now, as for bigotry: You have insisted on sprinkling your reading of my opinion with a liberal dose of your own value judgements. This never makes for a clear discussion of issues, unless you have no interest in understanding points of view that differ from yours.

Here is what dictionary.com says of the word 'bigot':

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. - Dictionary.com

So, a person is not a bigot simply for having a strong opinion. It is intolerance of those whose opinions differ that is the deciding factor. Your readiness to dismiss those that have a problem with ear rings as the 'small minded minority' with 'silly ideas' is making you look like a bigot.

Race is absolutely not a comparable issue in this case. The scale of the issue is relevant: there are many races, and it is impossible to find one single race that absolutely everyone from every race will be happy with. The very scale of the problem makes it impossible to deal with by simply banning one thing or another. So, we do the best we can: rather than have no police officers of any race, we strive to have representative numbers of each race.

The scale and nature of the potential ear ring problem is completely different. It is most likely only older people who have a problem, and relatively small numbers of police officers who would wear an ear ring. So, it is a simple matter to deal with the problem quickly and decisively by requiring them to remove their ear rings for the 8 hours they are on shift. If it is a problem because of older people, then time will solve the problem for us. All we need is a little patience.

So, I have given reasons why I think that scale of problem is a relevant factor when deciding what to do about claims of 'discrimination'. (Note I say what to do about, not whether to ignore). Can you give reasons why you think scale of problem is not relevant?