Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?

[Russ B]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...et/3670133.stm

Whilst I'm sure that gays in the force have often been confronted with discimination, anyone think they're overeacting just little bit here?

[Chris]

Maureen Adamson, the force's director of personnel, said: "Many men who wear earrings are not gay and the policy was certainly not designed to discriminate against gay men.

Sums it up for me. Whoever these anonymous gay officers are, who are 'said to be angry', I think they need to get some perspective on life. Sadly on the fringes of any 'minority' group are people who seem to have little to do but try to find discrimination even where there isn't any.

[Defiant]

Hampshire Constabulary has introduced a new dress code that allows women to wear studs but bans male officers from sporting ear jewellery. Gay officers are said to be angry at the change they see as discrimination.

It doe's kinda give the idea of chase me lol

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by towny

Sums it up for me. Whoever these anonymous gay officers are, who are 'said to be angry', I think they need to get some perspective on life. Sadly on the fringes of any 'minority' group are people who seem to have little to do but try to find discrimination even where there isn't any.

I quite agree with that, this is not discrimination against gay men. However, there is discrimination in general, it is wrong for women to be allowed to wear the studs whilst men cannot.

[Defiant]

It should actually be disallowed over health and safety reasons for both sex's. What if they get into a scuffle after all. 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

[Chris]

Originally Posted by philip.j.fry

I quite agree with that, this is not discrimination against gay men. However, there is discrimination in general, it is wrong for women to be allowed to wear the studs whilst men cannot.

It's only 'discrimination' in the strict sense of the word - that a distinction is made, in this case between male and female police officers. Sadly the word as commonly used has attracted a whole lot of baggage that almost implies 'discrimination' is necessarily bad, immoral and/or illegal.

That is not the case here. The Law allows for discrimination in the treatment of male and female police officers where there are good reasons. There are clearly good reasons here. The wearing of an ear-ring by a man may well be fine and dandy by people of my generation and younger (I'm 31), 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.

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.

[ZrByte]

Originally Posted by towny

It's only 'discrimination' in the strict sense of the word - that a distinction is made, in this case between male and female police officers. Sadly the word as commonly used has attracted a whole lot of baggage that almost implies 'discrimination' is necessarily bad, immoral and/or illegal.

That is not the case here. The Law allows for discrimination in the treatment of male and female police officers where there are good reasons. There are clearly good reasons here. The wearing of an ear-ring by a man may well be fine and dandy by people of my generation and younger (I'm 31), 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.

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.

So your saying its ok to discriminate to accomodate old fashioned (Lets face it biggoted) people??
By your reasoning black people also should not be allowed on the force because there are some people who are racist, and as such wouldnt be comfortable with a black officer.

Im really not trying to start an argument here but what you said above makes little sense to me.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by ZrByte

So your saying its ok to discriminate to accomodate old fashioned (Lets face it biggoted) people??
By your reasoning black people also should not be allowed on the force because there are some people who are racist, and as such wouldnt be comfortable with a black officer.

Im really not trying to start an argument here but what you said above makes little sense to me.

Your reasoning is flawed. For a start, I don't see how you see equivalence between age, 'old fashioned' attitudes and bigotry. You can be, or have, any one of those things without being all three. I reject absolutely the notion that someone who believes the way something was done in the past is better than the way it is done now is a 'bigot'. I'm afraid the accusation of bigotry is all too easily thrown around by people who simply can't respect someone for having a different opinion.

Secondly, you try to make the big issue of race equivalent to a relatively trivial issue like the wearing of an ear ring, which is a little bizarre. In an ideal world, all police officers would be of a type of person who is absolutely unable to cause offence to anyone, and who naturally exudes authority and demands respect. Such a person does not exist. So, what we must do instead is look at what we've got and decide how best to make use of it.

Race is an issue for, I hope, a minority of people across all communities and age groups, but it cuts in every direction - blacks may not trust whites, whites may think blacks are inferior, and so on. Given the complexity of the problem, the solution is to ensure the police force is properly representative of races in the UK.

Ear rings - well, this is on a completely different scale. A man can't change the colour of his skin. Nor should he have to. But he can take an ear ring out of his ear for the few hours he is on duty if it makes community relations easier.

Policemen should not wear earings .

Policemen should be approachable by the general public. Policemen wearing studs with short or shaven heads would just looklike thugs.

The police should have certain standards, and this equality B.S. should be nipped in the bud.

It's bad enough that they have scrapped the old entrance requirements for police (Height, weight etc). Short, fat, unfit police are not going to get the respect police deserve.

The police is trying to be all things to all people, and it can't be. The police are there to keep the peace, get physical when required and keep a profile of respectability. Studs in the ears of male officers would not fit into the latter.

Also

By your reasoning black people also should not be allowed on the force because there are some people who are racist, and as such wouldnt be comfortable with a black officer.

I think you're taking that to the extreme, I understood what he was on about - and that wasn't it.

[danielf]

Perhaps all gay police men should grow a moustache instead?

[ZrByte]

Originally Posted by towny

Your reasoning is flawed. For a start, I don't see how you see equivalence between age, 'old fashioned' attitudes and bigotry. You can be, or have, any one of those things without being all three. I reject absolutely the notion that someone who believes the way something was done in the past is better than the way it is done now is a 'bigot'. I'm afraid the accusation of bigotry is all too easily thrown around by people who simply can't respect someone for having a different opinion.

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...

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.

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

Originally Posted by towny

Secondly, you try to make the big issue of race equivalent to a relatively trivial issue like the wearing of an ear ring, which is a little bizarre. In an ideal world, all police officers would be of a type of person who is absolutely unable to cause offence to anyone, and who naturally exudes authority and demands respect. Such a person does not exist. So, what we must do instead is look at what we've got and decide how best to make use of it.

Race is an issue for, I hope, a minority of people across all communities and age groups, but it cuts in every direction - blacks may not trust whites, whites may think blacks are inferior, and so on. Given the complexity of the problem, the solution is to ensure the police force is properly representative of races in the UK.

Ear rings - well, this is on a completely different scale. A man can't change the colour of his skin. Nor should he have to. But he can take an ear ring out of his ear for the few hours he is on duty if it makes community relations easier.

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.

[ZrByte]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Policemen should not wear earings .

Policemen should be approachable by the general public. Policemen wearing studs with short or shaven heads would just looklike thugs.

The police should have certain standards, and this equality B.S. should be nipped in the bud.

It's bad enough that they have scrapped the old entrance requirements for police (Height, weight etc). Short, fat, unfit police are not going to get the respect police deserve.

The police is trying to be all things to all people, and it can't be. The police are there to keep the peace, get physical when required and keep a profile of respectability. Studs in the ears of male officers would not fit into the latter.

Also



I think you're taking that to the extreme, I understood what he was on about - and that wasn't it.

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???

[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.

[danielf]

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.

The link is about discrimination against gay people:

A police force has defended itself against charges of discriminating against gay officers after banning men from wearing earrings.

[Salu]

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

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

A trivial subject, a waste of everyone's time. We live in a me me me culture. I would say to them "Get a life and stop worrying about petty things."