1-in-6 Stars "must be gay or lesbian or disabled by 2020" says BBC

[Mongo42]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...n-or-bisexual/

The Washington Post

By Eugene Volokh July 15, 2014

A survey released Tuesday by the the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports:

"...Based on the 2013 NHIS data [collected in 2013 from 34,557 adults aged 18 and over], 96.6% of adults identified as straight, 1.6% identified as gay or lesbian, and 0.7% identified as bisexual. The remaining 1.1% of adults identified as “something else[]" [0.2%,] stated “I don’t know the answer[]" [0.4%] or refused to provide an answer [0.6%]..."

More specifically, 1.8 percent of men self-identify as gay and 0.4 percent as bisexual, and 1.5 percent of women self-identify as lesbian and 0.9 percent as bisexual.

The results are generally in the same ballpark as past estimates — and far below the long-debunked 10 percent estimate. But past data that I’ve seen had suggested that there were about twice as many gay or bisexual men as lesbian or bisexual women; this data suggests that there is no such gender gap.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Quotas has never been the answer. I'm gay myself and I disapprove of this thoroughly.

[Indigenously Abled]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...n-or-bisexual/

Survey asks if I'll do non-straight stuff, sure.

My dad asks, NO SIR FCK THAT.

[Deleted]

But is that even enough?

Wouldn't you need a quote for:

-disabled
-gay
-men
-women
-ethnicities
-religion
-lifestyle choices (vegan etc.)
-age (not enough old people)
-body (not enough overweight people)
-health (not enough people with mental health issues etc.)

Surely you would need quotas for all of those no?

[dixincide]

Not being racist/Sexist is the new racist/sexist.

[monkmastaeq]

I wonder. to make sure they are gay or lesbian are they going to have to watch them have sex? you have to confirm this right? Also how many times just to make sure they arent bi, or are they okay with bi fitting into their demo goal of 8%

[Deleted]

Now its a bit harder to do in the media, but do the employment procedure "blind" the applicants submitting their "curriculum vitae" and "work samples" but the person who chooses who to employed do not know there gender or sexuela orientation skin color etc on the applicants, yes its harder to do in the media becuse focus is on personal charisma, but atlest you can do it in the early stage.

Personally, I'm fed up with "positive" discrimination, applied for several goverment jobs that I was very qualified for, but they are also very heavy male dominated and normally did end up as number 2 or 3 on the list, and they even say unofficial, that they need to hire a women to fix the big gender imbalance, maybe the women who did get the jobb was more qualified then me, I will nerver know, becuse you can always say she did have a better personal chemistry, but it feel sour to have a suspicion that I did not get the jobb becuse I did have the wrong gender.

This isn't positive discrimination in that sense. If the BBC gives the job to someone because of any reason other than that they are the best person for the job they can be taken to court. Litigation is not a trivial problem in terms of cost, or in terms of bad publicity. It wouldn't be worth the risk to fill up a quota.

I'm guessing you are an American where "affirmative action" is legal, so you can be passed over for someone who is inferior to you on grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation etc. This is a hangover form reconstruction and the Jim Crowe era. I agree it is an anachronism. That wouldn't be legal here.

[breadisfunny]

I wonder. to make sure they are gay or lesbian are they going to have to watch them have sex? you have to confirm this right? Also how many times just to make sure they arent bi, or are they okay with bi fitting into their demo goal of 8%

uhm no. if they really wanted to confirm it all they would need to do is show up with marriage papers or some of their reading material.....also they could be faking it.

[LiiLoSNK]

Isn't the current ratio something like:

1/6 gay
5/6 mentally disabled

[Lutris]

As a non-progressive, knuckle dragging ape. I believe it's a necessary evil. Much like affirmative action. Either way someone get shit on. So why not shit on the group that overall has it best?

I don't believe as a whole, companies hire\promote the best person for the job. They hire who they feel most comfortable with (and expect to be capable to do it). For a corporate job, I'll have twice the ease of getting a job over someone with a neck tattoo and\or covered in piercings. If we look at the Gay movement, it's far more accepted now than before and in if you keep filling the TV with gay couples, it will become more and more acceptabe. Just like filling the screen with black characters. In the 60s Captain Kirk kissing Uhura was a big deal, now interracial couples are common TV.

I personally have no doubt there is a endless list of capable LGBT actors and actors with disabilities, but unless there is some push to get them more common, they'll be fairly limited in the number of roles offered.

I don't know what British TV is like. At least American TV "seems" to have plenty of LGBTers on TV. Of course, being a knuckle dragging ape, having just 1 LGBT on would be considered plenty in my book

I agree with this, and it's pretty insightful, actually.

This is stupid, it goes against everything that equality are, the person who have the best skill for the work shall have it, not becuse he/she love the same gender as themself or are crippled.

Sadly, companies tend to prioritise a certain kind of person (white, straight, able-bodied, cisgender) when hiring. As a gay, disabled person, I don't ever talk about my sexual orientation in work-related situations... But the moment I walk into an interview with my cane, I lose the job. I'm not applying for jobs that involve a lot of standing and/or physical labour, but my chances drop substantially the moment a potential employer finds out I'm disabled.

"That's illegal" yeah, it is, but unless the employer tells you they're not hiring you because of your disability, you're not going to be proving anything in court. They only have to say they found a better person for the job and they're off scot-free.

It's not as simple as not using said cane, either. I need it to stay upright/actually get up stairs without falling and breaking my neck.

[Deleted]

Why can't this just work like restaurants. Place gets shamed and ridiculed for being anti LBGT and then people stop going there. Like with Whole Foods or Chick Fil A.

Why does this require specific legislation? Doing this is just making some people more equal than others through no fault of their own.

This isn't legislation so far as what I can tell from the Mail's extraordinary piss-poor reporting. These are "hiring guidelines".

Any one who has worked in a business knows this kind of stuff gets passed around in memos which are usually binned straight away after their humour value has been exhausted by the workforce.

Without any legal obligation to stick to this quota then there won't likely be any practical impact at all. It is mostly just the Mail trying to wind people up and (on the evidence of this thread) mostly succeeding. Well done MMO champion. You're helping a small cabal of neo-fascist tax dodgers very wealthy.

[Indigenously Abled]

Isn't the current ratio something like:

1/6 gay
5/6 mentally disabled

Assuming there's no overlap.

Probably shouldn't assume there's no overlap.

[May90]

Quotas are stupid. Focus on eliminating biases from the processes, rather than focusing upon the end results.

If the best people get hired and it just so happens 99% of them are polyamorous transgendered minorities with speech impediments, more power to them.

One of the things to note here is that, even if we eliminate all bias from the process (doubt it will ever happen, but still), there still will be disparity between minorities and others, since the initial conditions differ. Transgender people, for example, don't just face discrimination when applying for a job; they are much more unlikely to be competitive, since they face a lot of discrimination issues also during educational process, are less likely to get proper education in the first place (many of them have their parents denounce them, so they can't even pay for the education), face enough social issues to be much more likely to become socially isolated and have less interest in applying for such public jobs as a BBC actor...

In this regard, hiring them preferentially (not in terms of process, but in terms of attracting them through ads, publications in journals they tend to read, etc.) can offset these biases, to an extent, and create a trend that retroactively will reduce all these biases as well. In theory, it can be more efficient at fighting the discrimination than just eliminating biases from the process and be done with it. In theory...

[LiiLoSNK]

There is definite overlap.

[Graeham]

Diversity for the sake of of diversity is a pretty stupid and outright obnoxious goal. Though I can't say I'm terribly surprised. Anyone involved with 'diversity movements' at a high level stands to make an immense amount of money in the process. They also get to justify going to all sorts of exclusive events. Which, I suspect, is the real reason behind this sort of thing. I fully expect to see a bunch of pretentious, hypocritical individuals push and celebrate 'diversity' whilst not actually doing a whole to work towards a genuinely inclusive society.

For true equality to occur one needs to stop thrusting specific individuals onto a pedestal just because of their gender, race or sexuality.

[Zippoflames]

So are they saying 1 in 6 people are gay or disabled? Because equality is fair representation of the nation. Somehow I doubt 1 in 6 gay, or disabled unless morbidly obese is part of disabled rank, than half of UK is disabled.

Well funny you should say this...
Clicky DM Link

[zenkai]

That's so stupid.

Quoted for truth. It shouldn't freaking matter what someones sex is and it shouldn't be required for a job. My head hurts from the stupidity.

[Adam Jensen]

50 years from now headlines will read 1 in 6 actors are pedophiles.

I still have money on the table this will be the next protected class.

Oh for fucks sakes, pedophilia is a completely different thing than homosexuality. Homosexuality doesn't hurt people, doesn't cause harm to innocent people, and its between consenting adults. Pedophilia is entirely different.

[Sesshou]

8% and 1 in 6 aren't the same number.

Also, lol@ lumping gays and lesbians in with disabilities.

1 in 6 roles must go to them. But, they are 8% of the actors ... that makes no sense.

This was probably cleared up in the 8 pages of posts, but in case it wasn't...

8% each. Two groups. 16% total. 1/6 is ~16.67% rounded to two decimal places. So yeah, they're pretty much equivalent unless you're just being super anal.

[May90]

Quoted for truth. It shouldn't freaking matter what someones sex is and it shouldn't be required for a job. My head hurts from the stupidity.

It depends though... If it is a job for a male role in a movie, you don't want to hire a female for that.

Or did you mean "sexuality", rather than "sex"?