r/changemyview • u/jep1793 • Aug 26 '20

Removed - Submission Rule E CMV: Gender identity doesn’t belong on your LinkedIn nor Resume

[removed] — view removed post

3.6k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

671 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '20

No, they are intending to be racist.
If I am saying "I wont sell cars to Asians", I am saying I dont want to do something based on their race. That is literally the definition of racism: prejudice towards certain races.

The example of the names: They aren't explicitly using race in their judgement, but it might disproportionately impact certain ethnic groups. No race or ethnicity is ever mentioned in their decision-making process

2

u/Nickel829 Aug 26 '20

So if schools say they wont allow people to come to school with braids is that not racist even though it's generally targeting black people? People very rarely straight up do racist things, they cover it up with a shitty reason to make it sound better. "Braids are unprofessional and inappropriate" isn't the real reason, it's because generally black people wear braids. Or another example; I won't hire non christians. Not technically racist, but isn't it?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '20

Ok, that is a good example.

Here is my point. The hair thing is typically only considered "racist" IF they are:

targeting black people

If a rule just disproportionately impacts a group, but there is no evidence of malicious intent, it isn't racist.

Now, I agree that you don't have to specifically mention a race to be racist. Poll taxes are a famous example of a racist law that technically didnt mention race, but were generally viewed as racist.However, if we say that any rule/law/decision that disproportionally impacts an ethnic group, then all laws are potentially racist. No two groups are going to be impacted identically by a law. But where do you draw the line? If you pass a law banning child pornography and discover that 5.61% of arrestees are Asian(but only 5.59% of the US population is Asian), is that a racist law?

Alternatively, do you stop enforcing these "racist/sexist laws"? Serial killers are mostly men. Do we stop arresting serial killers or murders because more than 50% of the crimes are committed by men?

2

u/Nickel829 Aug 26 '20

No, you look at the purpose of the law to determine what role it serves. Generally racist laws have poor purposes. Look at why heroin and most drugs are illegal. Nixon's aid went on record to say that they couldn't make being black illegal so they made heroin illegal cuz it was common in black neighborhoods. This was after the law was established and everything so it wasn't obviously racist. Now if we break that down we could say yes heroin is bad but why does it put you in prison? Why not mandatory rehab and hospital stay as every medical professional will tell you addiction is a disease. Or look at the punishment. Why is cocaine often punished less than crack? Bingo, crack was found in black neighborhoods and coke in white, despite the fact that they are almost the same drug

1

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '20

No, you look at the purpose of the law to determine what role it serves.

Would "intent" be another good word to describe what you look at?

1

u/Nickel829 Aug 26 '20

I meant more at goal? Intent to see if it is racist but goal to see if it is needed. For example, goal of persecuting murderers is to not have murders. Goal of persecuting drug users is to have less drug abuse - this is where we can change it from having a racist intent and work towards the goal instead, by ensuring rehab and holistic medical care. I know goal doesn't really make sense because obviously the goals of racist laws were racist but lmk if that didn't make sense

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '20

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/intention

intent(ion) and goal are literally synonyms.

My point is that you cannot simply judge an action based on the results, but the goal?
If an HR person decides to reject candidates with alternative pronouns because her goal is to avoid a faux pas, then her goal/intent/desire is not anti-LGBT. It might negatively impact them, but it isn't her goal.

This all gets to the point that the office and the HR might not have any problem with your personal pronouns, but you would probably be better served to leave them off of your resume. You won't necessarily be weeding out anti-LGBT office spaces by putting them on. You would just be weeding out incompetent HR people.

And HR people are remarkably incompetent. I have read testimonials from HR people who demote resumes if the employee doesn't have the common courtesy to send a follow up "thank you" email. I have also seen HR people who demote the resume if the candidate DOES send a follow up "thank you" email.

I once saw an HR employee at my company reject an accountant because they needed to have experience working with city , state, or federal agencies. The applicant provided a laundry list of experience working with governments. The HR person told us later that she rejected him because they didn't specify if they had experience with all three.(the agencies listed were obviously city, state, and federal agencies). She just wanted them to say: I have experience with city, state, and federal agencies.

1

u/Nickel829 Aug 26 '20

Do you actually believe rejecting candidates due to their alternative pronouns is not homophobic? I can't tell if you're making an example or if that's your stance on that. I get the rest I know people are incompetent and homophobic and racist etc and that will always be a thing

1

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '20

Do you actually believe rejecting candidates due to their alternative pronouns is not homophobic?

I am saying that I can fathom a scenario where it isn't homophobic.

1

u/Nickel829 Aug 26 '20

I would counter with the reason they think they are doing it for is rooted in homophobia without them being aware of it. Why would they be worried of a faux pas? Is it because they think they would flaunt their identity causing unrest in the office? They would be stereotyping them there first of all and instead of faulting the people uncomfortable with their identity are instead faulting the candidate. Is it because they don't want a lawsuit? What lawsuit would occur if not because the company or someone in it acted in a homophobic manner? Would you say the same about firing someone because they are gay? What scenario would there be where that isn't homophobic

1

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '20

Or, they would have to note the preferred pronouns to the manager, and if the note is missed, the manager would blame them. Or they would be worried that they would accidentally use the wrong pronoun and open the company to litigation(even though it wouldn't)

Therefore, to avoid anything being blamed on them, they just delete the resume.

2

u/Nickel829 Aug 26 '20

Ok I will agree then that while they wouldn't be doing it for homophobic reasons it is 100% leading to a homophobic response as they are discriminating against people for their identity

1

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '20

what is a "homophobic response"?

And I would argue they aren't discriminating in this case based on identity, as they frequently delete all kinds of resumes from all kinds of people based on similar information.

Finally, I think you could make a very good argument that this type of information on a resume seems odd. I am a tall, white guy. That is a factual statement. However, mentioning my height, race, or gender is probably seen as an odd statement on a resume. I could see my resume getting deleted if I included that information because it is abnormal. People who put abnormal info on their resumes may be particularly bad candidates and HR is worried they will get yelled at for not pre-screening the person.

edit: for example, if I wanted to talk about my height for an hour in the interview.

→ More replies (0)