Intersex Train on SWR

[AlterEgo]

Or there speaks a man who recognises that, unfortunately, in this day and age, if you say something which doesn't "conform" to the supposedly "progressive" social norms, can lead to abuse, social media pile ons (see JK Rowling) or even a visit from the plod because somebody was "offended" by what was said. For a supposedly "progressive" country, we're starting to give some surprisingly regressive places a run for their money in the tolerance stakes. Tolerance is a two way street - many seem to overlook that.

He was worried about it becoming "personal" despite posting anonymously and without personal consequences. We live in a liberal democracy and you can't just wade into a perfectly civil thread and say "well, better shut this down now" because the views there don't agree with your own. He posted his views freely and clearly - he didn't have to, but chose to. And people are choosing to disagree with it civilly.

 

[Howardh]

It is against my Christian faith, yes.

Then you're not "christian"?

 

[alex397]

What - intolerant because they don't like things which many consider personal and private being foisted on them ?

Yes, incredibly intolerant!

It’s not being “foisted” on them. It’s just a livery on a train for goodness sake.

And as I've pointed out - this incessant painting things in rainbow colours does have other, detrimental consequences for example those with sight issues. So who's "rights" are more important ? A partially sighted person's ability to safely cross a road or a LGBTQIA+'s person to have their "identity" celebrated ?

I’m not sure that’s your main issue with it somehow.

Or there speaks a man who recognises that, unfortunately, in this day and age, if you say something which doesn't "conform" to the supposedly "progressive" social norms, can lead to abuse, social media pile ons (see JK Rowling) or even a visit from the plod because somebody was "offended" by what was said. For a supposedly "progressive" country, we're starting to give some surprisingly regressive places a run for their money in the tolerance stakes. Tolerance is a two way street - many seem to overlook that.

So, we have to tolerate homophobia now?

 

[A0wen]

Yes, incredibly intolerant!

It’s not being “foisted” on them. It’s just a livery in a train for goodness sake.

I’m not sure that’s your main issue with it somehow.

So, we have to tolerate homophobia now?

You're actually demonstrating my point.

If somebody doesn't like something, then that's their right not to like something and to be able to express that. You seem to think that shouldn't be allowed.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Then you're not "christian"?

Amazing how some people can struggle with the concept of "love one another", isn't it?

 

[birchesgreen]

The fact a somewhat gaudy but harmless vinyl on a train can provoke such a response from some shows how far we as a society have to go eh.

 

[alxndr]

If somebody doesn't like something, then that's their right not to like something and to be able to express that. You seem to think that shouldn't be allowed.

The problem is that most people don't live and let live.

Last week someone at work called me a homophobic slur because they perceived me to be gay (I take pains to hide my identity at work). JK Rowling goes around gathering a following preaching that trans people are brainwashed at best and rapists at worst and should have their rights removed.

Until people stop experiencing discrimination for aspects of their identity then activism will exist. I don't care if people "like" something about me or not providing they can either be civil to me or ignore me, and don't treat me as lesser than anyone else.

 

[MikeWM]

My feelings on the matter is that we're increasingly confusing what people do in their personal life with what happens when they are at work, and that's not a good trend. Characteristics like sexuality, gender, skin colour, religion, etc. etc. should be totally indifferent to an employer. Employers should hire/fire/treat people based on their aptitude and abilities. If they are discriminating against certain groups of people due to characteristics rather than ability, that is very wrong, and should be exposed and stopped. Equally if there is a workplace culture that does so, that should also be exposed and stopped.

But this just seems oddly specific to me. Should we also have a train painted with verses from the Koran, staffed only by Muslims? How about a 'Catholic' train, with crucifixes painted on the outside, only staffed by Catholics? Or a train painted black, only staffed by black people? Or a train only staffed by people with a certain disability? Or are we actually saying that in the opinion of this company that some 'minorities' and specific characteristics are more important than others?

What difference does it make to me if the driver of my train is gay, trans, intersex, black, a Jew, has six toes, whatever? I don't need to know and I don't particularly want to know. All I care is that they are good at driving the train.

 

[102 fan]

The problem is that most people don't live and let live.

Last week someone at work called me a homophobic slur because they perceived me to be gay (I take pains to hide my identity at work). JK Rowling goes around gathering a following preaching that trans people are brainwashed at best and rapists at worst and should have their rights removed.

Until people stop experiencing discrimination for aspects of their identity then activism will exist. I don't care if people "like" something about me or not providing they can either be civil to me or ignore me, and don't treat me as lesser than anyone else.

Could you provide evidence for your statement about J K Rowling?

 

[Lucan]

Because heterosexual people are attacked in the streets for who they love or how they present?

How are "intersex" people attacked in the street with their "intersexuality" as a factor unless they are advertising that they are intersex? I don't go down the street waving a flag that I am heterosexual, and if I did I expect it would also attract some unwelcome attention (but not from women, sadly). If you mean just walking along with another man, I have done that with just friends many times and have never been attacked.

I have however been ridiculed and received plenty of other negative reactions for being hetero (or, perhaps worse, assumed to be asexual). Having done well academically when younger, people regarded me as the "brains" of my circle, and therefore in their eyes not a candidate for any form of romance, because that would have been at odds with their image of me. For example no third person ever introduced me to a girl of my own age.

Gays have it much easier in some ways, and one way is to do with the sex ratio. There are now millions of young heterosexual incels in Western society (I'm not one BTW) because large numbers of women in their 20's and 30's drop out of the dating game after having a child and cannot afford babysitters. Some women intend to have flings for a couple of years and then turn their back on any further relationship in favour of their career, or they simply find men a nuiscance. Meanwhile the fathers of the "fatherless" babies have dumped the mother and are back in the dating game, footloose and fancy-free - hence the skewed sex ratio among potentially sexually active heterosexuals. On every occasion I have been in a room socially, young women have been out numbered by young men by at least 4:1, not that I have even been invited to such occasions very often.

On the other hand, a sex ratio is not an issue in a gay community - in any group of gays all of them seeking a partner could find one, except possibly for just one if there is an odd number.

 

[alex397]

You're actually demonstrating my point.

If somebody doesn't like something, then that's their right not to like something and to be able to express that. You seem to think that shouldn't be allowed.

There’s a big difference with not liking a particular livery because of the design, and not liking a particular livery because of what it stands for.

By the way, it’s my right to disagree with what you are saying.

 

[A0wen]

There’s a big difference with not liking a particular livery because of the design, and not liking a particular livery because of what it stands for.

There are many things which stand for something - the established church being one such example. People are free to express their dislike or unhappiness with what it says and does - and frequently do. That's accepted. So why then is criticising a train, plane, bus or website painted in rainbow colours to express solidarity with the LGBTQIA community unacceptable ?

By the way, it’s my right to disagree with what you are saying.

As Voltaire reputedly put it "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - and as long as you extend me the same courtesy, there's no problem.

 

[DarloRich]

Characteristics like sexuality, gender, skin colour, religion, etc. etc. should be totally indifferent to an employer.

I agree. They SHOULD be but they often are not. That is why these sort of publicity campaigns are important to marginalised groups in society.

But this just seems oddly specific to me. Should we also have a train painted with verses from the Koran, staffed only by Muslims? How about a 'Catholic' train, with crucifixes painted on the outside, only staffed by Catholics? Or a train painted black, only staffed by black people? Or a train only staffed by people with a certain disability? Or are we actually saying that in the opinion of this company that some 'minorities' and specific characteristics are more important than others?

You are being silly. The purpose of this campaign is to show to people that the company involved encourage applicants form all sections of society AND support their employees to " bring their best to work" ( or whatever the current phrase de jour is). It is one thing to SAY that and another to DISPLAY that process. They think this is part of that display.

The thought process being that if an employee does not NEED ( not want but NEED) to hide their true self they might perform better and make the company a better place to be and therefore offer a better service to customers. It really isn't difficult to understand.

The world and attitudes have changed and companies want to show they welcome all and support all. They want to get the best talent rather than one section of society. Big companies have decided that this is part of their tool kit to do that.

JK Rowling goes around gathering a following preaching that trans people are brainwashed at best and rapists at worst and should have their rights removed.

I am not sure that is quite accurate is it?

On the other hand, a sex ratio is not an issue in a gay community - in any group of gays all of them seeking a partner could find one, except possibly for just one if there is an odd number.

I think you may need to reassess this. Gay people don't just form relationships with other gay people because they are gay! They form relationships with partners in the same way heterosexual people do: because there is a mutual attraction!

If, instead, you mean on a causal sexual basis there are plenty of ways for heterosexual people to obtain "hook ups". They work in exactly the same way as gay men looking for casual sex!

. If you mean just walking along with another man, I have done that with just friends many times and have never been attacked.

I don't suspect, however, that you are walking along the street with your friends holdings hands, snogging or undertaking some "heavy petting"! If you were that might lead, at the wrong time, to adverse reactions from simpletons.

because large numbers of women in their 20's and 30's drop out of the dating game after having a child and cannot afford babysitters. Some women intend to have flings for a couple of years and then turn their back on any further relationship in favour of their career, or they simply find men a nuiscance.

This is nonsense. Women are not the cause of the pathetic "Incel" movement. Men are.

 

[A0wen]

The fact a somewhat gaudy but harmless vinyl on a train can provoke such a response from some shows how far we as a society have to go eh.

Why ? Because some people dare to express an opinion contrary to the one you hold ?

I can recommend a book for you https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nineteen-E...-2-spons&sp_csd=d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9hdGY&psc=1

 

[DarloRich]

Meanwhile the fathers of the "fatherless" babies have dumped the mother and are back in the dating game, footloose and fancy-free - hence the skewed sex ratio among potentially sexually active heterosexuals. On every occasion I have been in a room socially, young women have been out numbered by young men by at least 4:1, not that I have even been invited to such occasions very often.

If I may I think that is more to do with your social circle and confidence than anything else. Personally, I have no problem in meeting women in social settings.

 

[Man_with_beard]

TOCs should be focusing on running trains on-time not pandering to the minority. Ticket prices didn't rise to pay for this nonsense.

 

[birchesgreen]

Why ? Because some people dare to express an opinion contrary to the one you hold?

Because you are getting angry about a vinyl wrap.

 

[A0wen]

Because you are getting angry about a vinyl wrap.

I haven't "got angry" at all - try re-reading my posts.

 

[AlterEgo]

How are "intersex" people attacked in the street with their "intersexuality" as a factor unless they are advertising that they are intersex? I don't go down the street waving a flag that I am heterosexual, and if I did I expect it would also attract some unwelcome attention (but not from women, sadly). If you mean just walking along with another man, I have done that with just friends many times and have never been attacked.

There is quite a difference between someone finding your heterosexuality offensive or derisive, and just not being successful with women.

I have however been ridiculed and received plenty of other negative reactions for being hetero (or, perhaps worse, assumed to be asexual). Having done well academically when younger, people regarded me as the "brains" of my circle, and therefore in their eyes not a candidate for any form of romance, because that would have been at odds with their image of me. For example no third person ever introduced me to a girl of my own age.

Do you think, really, that this is anything like someone disliking you *because you are heterosexual*? Why would nobody introduce you to women *because you are heterosexual*? You mean "in spite of the fact you are heterosexual".

Gays have it much easier in some ways, and one way is to do with the sex ratio. There are now millions of young heterosexual incels in Western society (I'm not one BTW) because large numbers of women in their 20's and 30's drop out of the dating game after having a child and cannot afford babysitters. Some women intend to have flings for a couple of years and then turn their back on any further relationship in favour of their career, or they simply find men a nuiscance. Meanwhile the fathers of the "fatherless" babies have dumped the mother and are back in the dating game, footloose and fancy-free - hence the skewed sex ratio among potentially sexually active heterosexuals. On every occasion I have been in a room socially, young women have been out numbered by young men by at least 4:1, not that I have even been invited to such occasions very often.

No, what's happened is women have had their rights and social status increased in the last 25 years or more, and with the advent of internet dating can now be much more selective than they were before. Women are much more likely to introduce men to their female friends if they judge them to be transparent, low-risk and respectful.

On the other hand, a sex ratio is not an issue in a gay community - in any group of gays all of them seeking a partner could find one, except possibly for just one if there is an odd number.

You do realise that many gay people may actually be quite discerning and not just want to partner up with whoever is free?

 

[DarloRich]

TOCs should be focusing on running trains on-time not pandering to the minority. Ticket prices didn't rise to pay for this nonsense.

how much has the ticket price gone up because of this? Could you break it down for me?

( I suspect this whole thing cost less than the bill for tea bags across the company)

 

[LowLevel]

How are "intersex" people attacked in the street with their "intersexuality" as a factor unless they are advertising that they are intersex? I don't go down the street waving a flag that I am heterosexual, and if I did I expect it would also attract some unwelcome attention (but not from women, sadly). If you mean just walking along with another man, I have done that with just friends many times and have never been attacked.

I have however been ridiculed and received plenty of other negative reactions for being hetero (or, perhaps worse, assumed to be asexual). Having done well academically when younger, people regarded me as the "brains" of my circle, and therefore in their eyes not a candidate for any form of romance, because that would have been at odds with their image of me. For example no third person ever introduced me to a girl of my own age.

Gays have it much easier in some ways, and one way is to do with the sex ratio. There are now millions of young heterosexual incels in Western society (I'm not one BTW) because large numbers of women in their 20's and 30's drop out of the dating game after having a child and cannot afford babysitters. Some women intend to have flings for a couple of years and then turn their back on any further relationship in favour of their career, or they simply find men a nuiscance. Meanwhile the fathers of the "fatherless" babies have dumped the mother and are back in the dating game, footloose and fancy-free - hence the skewed sex ratio among potentially sexually active heterosexuals. On every occasion I have been in a room socially, young women have been out numbered by young men by at least 4:1, not that I have even been invited to such occasions very often.

On the other hand, a sex ratio is not an issue in a gay community - in any group of gays all of them seeking a partner could find one, except possibly for just one if there is an odd number.

What a bizarre write up that strikes me as significant overthinking.

What's a gay community? I am, such is life, a gay man. I met my partner in much the same way other humans do, socially, and 15 years ago we started going out. We have a house together and a couple of cars and we like visiting my family and treating my niece to presents.

I have some gay friends, but like society itself, the vast majority of our friends are heterosexual, and also men.

I'm not particularly bothered whether people approve of me, I don't particularly approve of organised religion, but I let people who practice that particular activity get on with it without any overt judgement or comment from me.

Live and let live seems to be the best way forward for me. To steal from the Bible "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise".

That was carved into the lectern at the church I attended occasionally as a child before I decided religion wasn't for me and I've always rather liked it.

Be nice to other people, and don't be stupid about elements of their personality that are nothing to do with you. Also translatable as "Why in a world with God in it would they allow someone to massacre a load of kids and say "it's the way it is", but condemn someone to eternal damnation for what they do in their bedroom with another consenting adult?"

 

[MikeWM]

I agree. They SHOULD be but they often are not. That is why these sort of publicity campaigns are important to marginalised groups in society.

But as was pointed out above in respect to the Met, a bit of performative virtue signalling doesn't necessarily mean that the employer is actually like that once you start working for them.

The world and attitudes have changed and companies want to show they welcome all and support all. They want to get the best talent rather than one section of society. Big companies have decided that this is part of their tool kit to do that.

But that ignores the fact that doing this could put other people off. Maybe we're saying some minorities are more important than others - that attracting LGBTQ+ employees is more important than attracting devout Christians or Muslims, for example - and *maybe* that's actually not an unreasonable thing to do - but let's not pretend we're 'welcoming all' and 'supporting all' by doing this sort of thing. The way to 'welcome all' and 'support all' is to not draw attention to, and promote, characteristics that are irrelevant to the job at hand.

You say I'm being silly, but I see absolutely no difference between this train, and having a 'Catholic' train with crucifixies painted on the outside. What is the difference, other than that virtue signalling about LGBTQ+ inclusivity is currently fashionable and virtue signalling about Catholic inclusivity isn't?

 

[Dent]

To give a practical example - a number of places have taken to painting rainbow 'zebra' crossings. But people with sight impediments this makes it more difficult for them to use these crossings as they can't make out the contrasting colours in the way they can when it's simple black and white. So surely, the point should be about ensuring people can access and use these things ?

Where have "pride" crossings replaced zebra crossings, and are expected to be treated as zebra crossings?

All the "pride" crossings I have seen are actually controlled by traffic lights (either a pedestrian-operated crossing or controlled as part of a junction), which don't normally have any special markings (and certainly not black and white stripes as they are not zebra crossings).

 

[DarloRich]

But as was pointed out above in respect to the Met, a bit of performative virtue signalling doesn't necessarily mean that the employer is actually like that once you start working for them.

Indeed, but I would suggest that is the test ( and a test the met have failed massively) to ensure that it isn't just "virtue signalling" and is actually reality once you walk though the door.

But that ignores the fact that doing this could put other people off.

IMO: Only if you are actively looking for a way to be put off. Perhaps you and others are?

It is also conceivable that the company involved has demographic information for its staff that shows this sector of society is not coming through the HR process and so they want to boost that.

The way to 'welcome all' and 'support all' is to not draw attention to, and promote, characteristics that are irrelevant to the job at hand.

But that doesn't work. What you mean by that is to only recruit from our traditional groups. Fine, if like me, you are a middle class. middle aged ( sigh) white bloke. Not so good for other people.
Big companies ( especially engineering/utility companies) have loads of research that shows them that they have not been seen as an attractive place to work by people other than the white middle class sector of society. They want to change that and think this is away of showing they are open to all.

What is the difference, other than that virtue signalling about LGBTQ+ inclusivity is currently fashionable and virtue signalling about Catholic inclusivity isn't?

It could of course just be that. I would counter by saying I bet company demographic information shows plenty of Catholics or other religionists. I have found that people are much happier to tell you via demographic surveys that they are Catholic than they are to tell you they are Catholic and disabled. I bet the same goes for Religion and Sexuality.

 

[MikeWM]

IMO: Only if you are actively looking for a way to be put off. Perhaps you and others are?

I'm put off companies when I perceive them to be engaging in 'fashionable' virtue signalling. I'm indifferent as to *what* it is they're fashionably virtue signalling about - I don't care less what characteristics people have, indeed I don't want to be thinking about them at all, which is why I have serious issues with the massive growth of the other forms of fashionable virtue signalling that companies are engaging in nowadays with 'unconscious bias' and 'microaggression' etc. training.

It is also conceivable that the company involved has demographic information for its staff that shows this sector of society is not coming through the HR process and so they want to boost that.

But that doesn't work. What you mean by that is to only recruit from our traditional groups.

I'm sure there must be more effective mechanisms of recruitment than this, but I suppose this may be a mechanism that helps somewhat. Though that seems even more an argument for attracting *all* minorities, not putting some sort of hierarchy of minorities in play.

It could of course just be that. I would counter by saying I bet company demographic information shows plenty of Catholics or other religionists. I have found that people are much happier to tell you via demographic surveys that they are Catholic than they are to tell you they are Catholic and disabled. I bet the same goes for Religion and Sexuality.

Surveys are one thing, what people feel free to express in the workplace is another thing. Would a member of staff wearing a visible crucifix or rosary be viewed as favourably as wearing a pride rainbow or having pronouns on a name badge, for example? We all know that the 'Catholic' train I've mentioned twice now just wouldn't happen - and indeed it shouldn't.

 

[Intercity110]

Blue and grey trains are an excellent metaphor for the 70s and 80s: male domination, grey uniformity and absence of diversity.

wow, a sentence made mostly of buzzwords, don’t see those very often

Well, if you know anything about autism, you'd know that keeping the trains in a consistent livery would probably be more accommodating for them, whereas painting them in different, one off liveries like this is likely to cause some autistics more of a problem.

If it was a full ivery, (such as 390 119 from avanti) then (i, an autistic person think) it would be a lot more stressful then just changing the colours of a section of the livery. and a mish-mash of liveries such as on SWR is far more distressing than a re-coloured section.

If you knew anything about autism you’d know no two autistics are the same and you wouldn’t make such sweeping statements.

that is true, although many are similar

"enjoy consistent routine and schedules and get upset or anxious should that routine or schedule be changed."

these aren’t routines

My only real problem with it all is that it is really, really, ugly, and seems to have broken the concept.
No one can be offended by a pretty rainbow, and its a clear symbol of tolerance for diversity. But seeing as the individual colours of the rainbow flag are not for any one particular group why do they have to deface it with the horrible chevrons etc? Adding bits for specific groups seems contra to the concept to me. And how specific are we going to get, every individual person's specific characteristics?

It seems to define people by one characteristic, which is surely the opposite of a general acceptance of diversity.

I completely agree, why couldn’t they add more stripes At the Bottom?

Where have "pride" crossings replaced zebra crossings, and are expected to be treated as zebra crossings?

there was one in san-fransisco or somewhere like that and i believe there was one in northampton, changed to mini LGBT blocks around the edge.

 

[Purple Train]

Slightly OT - but this does deserve comment. I understand where @davews is coming from. However as a Christian, my take on it is I condemn the sin, not the sinner. So it then comes down to how people choose to live their lives, compared to the teachings of the Bible. So endeavouring to avoid sin - which can take many forms.

Absolutely.

This does seem to be a concept which is increasingly becoming alien in our culture - either you love and support everything about a certain issue, or hate and despise it. Is it possible to love the person who commits the sin, and yet condemn the sin itself? Increasingly the answer seems to be no. This is the key issue I have with many of the posts people have made on this forum. If "condemn the sin, love the sinner" is impossible, love, in its every form, would not exist, pure and simple.

We are all sinners. We are also all God's children, created in His own image, and loved by Him. Why should we condemn others for being sinful, when we, however much we wish to ignore it, are sinners ourselves? "As I have loved you, so must you love one another." - John 13:34.

Think of the Prodigal Son. The father does not run after his son, but he waits for him to return. Not judgmentally, like the older brother, but still in perfect and unconditional love for his lost son - not his profligacy, not his sins, but for his son - and organises the huge feast upon his return.

Why can we not be more like that - on both sides? We won't ever agree unequivocally with the actions, beliefs etc. of any other person in this world, past, present, or future.

Love and agreement are two different things - and hate and disagreement even more so. Things need not be so black-and-white.

To be clear: I do not support gay marriage (not necessarily all relationships), I do not support the Scottish identification bill that was blocked, I am very strongly against abortion; it annoys me somewhat when people, after listening to me explain myself politically, automatically assume that I take a liberal approach in such matters (given I'm otherwise a fairly textbook left-winger). This, I think, shows the kind of issues around how polarised this is, shows how black-and-white things are (which I'm not suggesting is due to any particular "side" on this discussion).

Nevertheless, I support "inclusivity", and I think that's where the distinction is going un-noticed. My belief is that the orientation, faith, gender, and age (to an extent) of whoever is driving my train, checking my ticket, operating the doors, emptying the bins, fixing the ticket machines, etc. etc. etc. are irrelevant. And, in an industry that has historically had issues with marginalised groups, I think that a gesture to show how they are committed to it is a good thing, even though I'm not sure about the choice of gesture.

(Not necessarily aimed at you @A0wen - just prompted by your post.)

 

[DarloRich]

I'm put off companies when I perceive them to be engaging in 'fashionable' virtue signalling. I'm indifferent as to *what* it is they're fashionably virtue signalling about - I don't care less what characteristics people have, indeed I don't want to be thinking about them at all, which is why I have serious issues with the massive growth of the other forms of fashionable virtue signalling that companies are engaging in nowadays with 'unconscious bias' and 'microaggression' etc. training.

colour me surprised I held a similar view until I actually did some of this training into things like unconscious bias. I found it illuminating actually. Have you done any such training?

I'm sure there must be more effective mechanisms of recruitment than this, but I suppose this may be a mechanism that helps somewhat. Though that seems even more an argument for attracting *all* minorities, not putting some sort of hierarchy of minorities in play.

agreed - however I simply state that companies often feel they have to put more effort into attracting certain sections of society. There isn't a hierarchy, there are just different tools to attract people with protected characteristics.

Surveys are one thing, what people feel free to express in the workplace is another thing.

that is the entire point of this exercise!

 

[MikeWM]

colour me surprised I held a similar view until I actually did some of this training into things like unconscious bias. I found it illuminating actually. Have you done any such training?

Yes, and I wasn't remotely a fan. I don't want to, and I'm not going to, be constantly considering the characteristics of the people I interact with, unless it is directly relevant to the specific situation. We should be moving to a society where everyone behaves that way, and I think this sort of thing is a massive step backwards where we were previously making very good progress.

 

[DarloRich]

I don't want to, and I'm not going to, be constantly considering the characteristics of the people I interact with, unless it is directly relevant to the specific situation.

I don't think that is what the training I had was asking you to do. Instead it was asking you consider characteristics when it is relevant. Mine was focused very much on recruitment so was absolutely relevant.

We should be moving to a society where everyone behaves that way, and I think this sort of thing is a massive step backwards where we were previously making very good progress.

I agree - we should but we are not. Doing nothing doesn't seem to be a very good option because there are many people who do see characteristics all the time and do so negatively.