Judge rules that calling women "birds" is sexist

by **Kerwa** » Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:43 pm

Salus Maior wrote:Who even says that anymore?

The cool kids.

by **Haganham** » Wed Sep 22, 2021 8:49 pm

Kerwa wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:Who even says that anymore?

The cool kids.

Pic related?

by **Galimencia** » Thu Sep 23, 2021 2:09 am

People nowadays are so overtly sensitive that they get offended with anything and evrything. And yes, our judicial system is supporting it. Sure, if the woman has specifically asked her boss to not refer to her as 'bird', he shouldn't have said that to irritate her. But man, going to a bloody court over such a trivial issue and the judge even supporting such a thing! The establishment actually supports people to be hypersensitive jerks, and the people themselves are proud to be one. What a weird society we are living! Calling woman a 'bird' is definitely not sexist, it's just a casual term. I've called my cousins bird once or twice, and they've taken it sportingly.

by **The New California Republic** » Thu Sep 23, 2021 2:13 am

Galimencia wrote:[...] But man, going to a bloody court over such a trivial issue and the judge even supporting such a thing! [...]

A reminder again that this employment tribunal wasn't just for that, it was covering a violation under the Equality Act 2010, specifically a disability-related issue in relation to reasonable adjustments.

by **Grave_n_idle** » Thu Sep 23, 2021 2:17 am

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:But what the law says is irrelevant to one particular point; that any attempt to extend sexual harassment to include terms of endearment is fucking ridiculous.

Your opinion is uninformed and irrelevant.

You're trying to argue that existing law is an extension of that same law.

Judge rules that calling women "birds" is sexist

Is referring to women as "birds" (or any other equivalent word) sexist?

Who is online