E-mail address to contact Admin direct is admin@religionethics followed by .co.uk.
I've never seen a job application or even an enquiry into applying for a job in which the potential applicant felt it necessary to warn us of their views with respect to certain scientific facts. People just don't do it.
And yet when someone did they got 2 responses that meant a belief in scientific facts would be a problem. But you are much more concerned about belittling the person to be bothered about that.
They were clearly looking for a fight. So yes, I criticise them.
Nice to see you standing up for the suppression of facts.
And wanting people standing up for free expression to shut up because they are just 'looking for a fight'
What facts? All we have is two short articles in newspapers, one of which is inaccessible to me.In a job application
Don't you think that knowing there are 2 police forces don't want their employees stating facts about sex is a good thing to have found out?
I wouldn't want my employees stating facts about sex in the course of their duties. It's totally irrelevant to writing computer software.
But if you are recording the sex of a person committing a crime it will be relevant.
No it won't. You would just record the sex and not make comment about it.
And yet we have police forces recording sex based on self ID.
That's a policy decision made a long way up the chain of command. If you are a constable arresting somebody, you just have to record what they say. Their actual sex and/or gender doesn't become an issue until you need to choose a prison to put them in while they are on remand. Even then, there's no room for personal views: you have to do what the guidelines say.
here certainly seems to be a large number of these questionable gender people
Depends on how many types of gender non-conformity you include. If you include non-binary, genderqueer, and trans, plus others, estimates vary a lot.
Not sure there are. We just here more about it nowadays. Looked it up and a couple of sources give an estimate of 1 in 500 in the UK. Which equates to about 135,000 (ish) people.
Made a point of not quoting numbers therefore the 'seems' in that sentence, no judgement offered either way just thought it worth a mention about the difficulties.
You said there seems to be a large number. I was merely pointing out one of the possible reasons why there "seems to be a large number" and then provided rough numbers from a couple of sources to try to give the numbers some perspective.Pardon me for even trying to be fucking helpful.
And just ffs!https://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2020-08-28/strike-jk-rowling-trans-controversy/amp/?__twitter_impression=true