M409 – LGBTQ+ Motion 2016

Announcements Posted on
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    M409 – LGBTQ+ Motion 2016, TSR Labour Party
    This House believes that the Government should do more in tackling the issues of homophobia and transphobia.

    There are estimated to be at least 3.6m people on the LGBTQ+ spectrum in the UK but sadly, there is institutionalised homophobia and transphobia in our society, in a similar way to racism. The LGBTQ+ community is statistically one of the most discriminated against demographics in the world today. Although the demographic has seen positive gains in recent years, there is still a long way to go before they are treated equally to heterosexual people. It is a combination of the supposed ‘novelty’ of the LGBTQ+ concepts and a lack of information about them which contribute to the homophobic and transphobic attitudes prevalent today.

    Hate crime towards LBGTQ+ people is up 170% and unfortunately the Government is failing to put enough measures in place to combat the problem. Hate crime can take many forms, both physically and verbally, and the torrent of discrimination that LGBTQ+ people face can take a huge toll on their lives. Nick Antjoule, hate crime manager at the charity Galop, said the figures showed that ‘there needs to be widespread training of police officers about transphobia.’ Mr Antjoule also went on to describe the ‘issue of trust’ which exists between the forces and the trans community. This particular type of hate crime is constantly on the rise. The Government must clamp down on the issue to prevent it from spiralling out of control. Getting the police to treat such crimes more seriously and imposing tougher penalties on the offenders would be steps in the right direction.

    LGBTQ+ people also face substantial discrimination in the workplace with 41% of LGBTQ+ employees saying they have been physically or verbally abused by their co-workers. There should be no reason for people to be afraid of going to work simply because of their sexual orientation. The Government has to to educate employers about how to combat this discrimination and it needs to impose harsher penalties of those guilty of LGBTQ+ abuse. However, workplace discrimination does not just come in the form of abuse. The Williams Institute found that people on the LGBTQ+ spectrum can earn up to 32% less in wages than their heterosexual counterparts. This is a staggering statistic and one which must be rectified. People must be paid based on the job, their skills and their work rate, and it is disturbing that some businesses also base salaries on what sexual orientation someone is - the Government needs to ensure this never happens.

    In our sophisticated country, the hate crime and discrimination in the workplace attacking LGBTQ+ people is an embarrassment. Unfortunately the Government is not doing enough to target homophobia and transphobia. There are three policies the Government needs to implement in order to tackle these issues: by increasing awareness, educating employers and escalating the punishments for those found guilty of hate crimes. Increasing people's awareness of different sexualities, whether that is through PSHE sessions in schools or creating a campaign, similar to UEFA's 'No to Racism' one. Employers can be educated further by the Government further about LBTQ+ discrimination in the workplace and how to deal with it through trade unions and liaising with companies. Finally, the Government must take hate crime against LGBTQ+ people much more seriously and not treat it as a completely 'minor' crime because otherwise, there is the danger that it could keep rising. Instead, the Government should treat such abuse as a serious form of hate crime and deal with it accordingly; depending on the nature of the incident, either fine the offenders, arrest them and/or add the offence to their criminal record.

    Sources:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7159026.html
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6692991.html
    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7183306.html
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    " There are estimated to be at least 3.6m people on the LGBTQ+ spectrum in the UK but sadly, there is institutionalised homophobia and transphobia in our society, in a similar way to racism. "

    And people claim Trump has is own reality XD
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Is this **** serious? :laugh:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Aye. Even if the facts are not indeed true or the evidence or even argument is weak the overall message is a good one. We shouldn't ignore it due to errors in how the message was represented.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Completely agree
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What link is the wage gap in? Is it like the female wage gap that has been debunked for years or does it compare for people doing the same job with the same experience etc?

    I'll propose a different scenario maybe the police are targeting to things that aren't crimes and prosecuting them as hate crimes and that is why the prosecution rate is also falling
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I'm content with current legislation.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    What link is the wage gap in? Is it like the female wage gap that has been debunked for years or does it compare for people doing the same job with the same experience etc?

    I'll propose a different scenario maybe the police are targeting to things that aren't crimes and prosecuting them as hate crimes and that is why the prosecution rate is also falling
    Female wage gap isn't 'debunked' so much as 'more subtle than either side portrays it to be'.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Female wage gap isn't 'debunked' so much as 'more subtle than either side portrays it to be'.
    When even the huffington post has ran an article about how the wage gap is a lie then it's pretty safe to say it is.

    Basic business sense also shows this if women are 20 something % cheaper to hire then why don't businesses hire exclusively women?

    The wage gap doesn't compare like for like and has so many other holes it is laughable.

    There is a earnings gap but it is so different how it is portrayed and that includes this motion.

    I admire the way whoever wrote this fudged the statistics to help push the idea that LGBT people are paid less as if I use what I believe they are basing it on you can just as easily say that heterosexual people are discriminated against as there is evidence that shows that LGBT people can earn up to 8.22% more than there heterosexual counterparts.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    aye
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Aye
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    "There is institutionalised homophobia and transphobia in our society, in a similar way to racism"

    No there isn't. There is no legislation discriminating against these groups, and there are sanctions for individuals who do.


    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Female wage gap isn't 'debunked' so much as 'more subtle than either side portrays it to be'.
    The idea that men will be paid more than women for doing the same job, which is how many interpret the wage gap, has indeed been debunked.

    The fact that the median annual earnings for men are higher than for women has obviously not been debunked, and doesn't need to be, because it's not a issue which needs to be addressed.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    When even the huffington post has ran an article about how the wage gap is a lie then it's pretty safe to say it is.

    Basic business sense also shows this if women are 20 something % cheaper to hire then why don't businesses hire exclusively women?

    The wage gap doesn't compare like for like and has so many other holes it is laughable.

    There is a earnings gap but it is so different how it is portrayed and that includes this motion.

    I admire the way whoever wrote this fudged the statistics to help push the idea that LGBT people are paid less as if I use what I believe they are basing it on you can just as easily say that heterosexual people are discriminated against as there is evidence that shows that LGBT people can earn up to 8.22% more than there heterosexual counterparts.
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    "There is institutionalised homophobia and transphobia in our society, in a similar way to racism"

    No there isn't. There is no legislation discriminating against these groups, and there are sanctions for individuals who do.




    The idea that men will be paid more than women for doing the same job, which is how many interpret the wage gap, has indeed been debunked.

    The fact that the median annual earnings for men are higher than for women has obviously not been debunked, and doesn't need to be, because it's not a issue which needs to be addressed.
    You're both adopting an assumption that the 'wage gap' is only relevant insofar as it sees people being paid different amounts for the same job - and I agree, that has been shown to no longer exist, but it hasn't been 'debunked' because nobody ever claimed there was a gap using that interpretation. However, there still exist undeniably problematic social stigmas and expectations which see women being significantly more likely than men to work part-time (and part-time work pays less per hour than full time work of the same ability), and significantly less likely to push for promotion. Thus, claiming the problem of the 'wage gap' has been solved is myopic.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    You're both adopting an assumption that the 'wage gap' is only relevant insofar as it sees people being paid different amounts for the same job - and I agree, that has been shown to no longer exist, but it hasn't been 'debunked' because nobody ever claimed there was a gap using that interpretation. However, there still exist undeniably problematic social stigmas and expectations which see women being significantly more likely than men to work part-time (and part-time work pays less per hour than full time work of the same ability), and significantly less likely to push for promotion. Thus, claiming the problem of the 'wage gap' has been solved is myopic.
    Here's one example that proves your "nobody ever claimed there was a gap using that interpretation" wrong https://youtu.be/-WWzELjRfWA

    So what you are saying is that women aren't free to make their own choices

    You look at the numbers and assume there must be a problem with any discrepancy, so you want more women in full time work I approach it from a different view what do people want? Studies have shown women who work part time are happier.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...part-time.html

    Once again you say it's a problem but that normally involves an increase of work and time which a lot of women don't want.

    We shouldn't be pushing for the numbers to be equal we should be pushing for people to be able to choose and as Theresa May has proven if a woman wants to make it to the top they can and if they prefer to work part time they can do that as well.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Here's one example that proves your "nobody ever claimed there was a gap using that interpretation" wrong https://youtu.be/-WWzELjRfWA
    Except there's absolutely nothing which suggests that's the interpretation is used.

    So what you are saying is that women aren't free to make their own choices

    You look at the numbers and assume there must be a problem with any discrepancy, so you want more women in full time work I approach it from a different view what do people want? Studies have shown women who work part time are happier.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...part-time.html

    Once again you say it's a problem but that normally involves an increase of work and time which a lot of women don't want.
    And yet it's undeniable those social pressures exist. The problem isn't with employers, it's with existing gender norms which see men being regarded as 'strong' and women being regarded as '*****es' if they aggressively seek success in the workplace; with gender norms which view men as pathetic if they stay at home shortly after a child is born whereas it is expected of women; with existing employment structures which undervalue part-time labour and impose a high cost salary-wise for flexible working, both of which are things valued overwhelmingly by women as opposed to men.

    We shouldn't be pushing for the numbers to be equal we should be pushing for people to be able to choose and as Theresa May has proven if a woman wants to make it to the top they can and if they prefer to work part time they can do that as well.
    The bolded is the worst argument I've seen you make. The question isn't 'can you find an anomaly', the question is 'do equal choices genuinely exist?' - and women don't have equal freedom of choice in that regard.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I would support further investigation into sexuality-fuelled hate crimes, and in fact a push for more LGBT-related information to be included in sex education (though that's outside the scope of this motion).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Except there's absolutely nothing which suggests that's the interpretation is used.



    And yet it's undeniable those social pressures exist. The problem isn't with employers, it's with existing gender norms which see men being regarded as 'strong' and women being regarded as '*****es' if they aggressively seek success in the workplace; with gender norms which view men as pathetic if they stay at home shortly after a child is born whereas it is expected of women; with existing employment structures which undervalue part-time labour and impose a high cost salary-wise for flexible working, both of which are things valued overwhelmingly by women as opposed to men.



    The bolded is the worst argument I've seen you make. The question isn't 'can you find an anomaly', the question is 'do equal choices genuinely exist?' - and women don't have equal freedom of choice in that regard.
    He says that women get paid less for the same work.

    Similar things happen throughout the animal kingdom and while you chose to push oh it's only social factors I would say that it goes way beyond that and that it's roots come from evolution and that is why it exists but people who love to push this can't accept that maybe men and women are different.

    Companies don't pay as well for things that aren't ideal for them what a surprise.

    If you look women who want to work hard and push for the top can get there your idea that women aren't free to make their own choices is rediculous, is there anything stopping a woman from working full time for decades to reach the top? The answer is no, it isn't a rediculous argument when women can reach the top then you can not say women can not reach the top.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    He says that women get paid less for the same work.

    Similar things happen throughout the animal kingdom and while you chose to push oh it's only social factors I would say that it goes way beyond that and that it's roots come from evolution and that is why it exists but people who love to push this can't accept that maybe men and women are different.

    Companies don't pay as well for things that aren't ideal for them what a surprise.

    If you look women who want to work hard and push for the top can get there your idea that women aren't free to make their own choices is rediculous, is there anything stopping a woman from working full time for decades to reach the top? The answer is no, it isn't a rediculous argument when women can reach the top then you can not say women can not reach the top.
    'It comes from evolution' isn't a good argument. It's the same as the 'oh it's natural therefore it's good' argument (which is a reaaaaally bad argument, high stillbirth rates are natural). Even if they are evolutionary factors, we ought to fight them as a species.

    The difference is more than companies taking a fair reduction, because labour markets ultimately can never be truly competitive.

    The question isn't whether a few exceptional women might be able to struggle through, the question is whether it's as easy for women as men, and lower rates of women in top jobs raises a strong prima facie case that it isn't.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    'It comes from evolution' isn't a good argument. It's the same as the 'oh it's natural therefore it's good' argument (which is a reaaaaally bad argument, high stillbirth rates are natural).
    I'll just add my favourite counterpoint for that old fallacy: it's not natural for humans to fly.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    'It comes from evolution' isn't a good argument. It's the same as the 'oh it's natural therefore it's good' argument (which is a reaaaaally bad argument, high stillbirth rates are natural). Even if they are evolutionary factors, we ought to fight them as a species.

    The difference is more than companies taking a fair reduction, because labour markets ultimately can never be truly competitive.

    The question isn't whether a few exceptional women might be able to struggle through, the question is whether it's as easy for women as men, and lower rates of women in top jobs raises a strong prima facie case that it isn't.
    Once again just using plain old statistics is misleading, to reach the top jobs you have to work almost non stop and statistics show women don't do that and that is because they tend to be happier not doing that, if you work part time which has been showed that women tend to prefer you have pretty much no chance of reaching the top male or female.

    Your right we should just make sure that children do not get to do things they prefer we must make sure they all have the same preferences etc so when they are adults we can ensure that the numbers everywhere are 50/50, you are approaching it from the other side of the spectrum and saying we need to ignore these differences because you do not like the results of them.
 
 
 
Updated: October 18, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
How are you feeling about doing A-levels?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.