Thread by @SecDetective

This is a very thorny subject, so I’ll tread carefully, but I believe this is a valid point and a worthwhile consideration.

It pertains to the presupposition that a police (or other public sector) workforce should be demographically representative of its force area.

(Thread.)

The next step following from this premise now holds that affirmative action (or positive discrimination, or the same action by any other name) is justified in bringing such a workforce into a closer mapping of its demographic area.

The terminology alluded to above is largely inconsequential, though it’s worth noting that they all try to shy away from the reality that employment is a zero-sum endeavour.

One candidate’s loss is another’s gain. Thus there’s always someone being discriminated *against*.

To argue that there need to be more officers of characteristic X to achieve proportionality, while the total number of positions available remains the same, is to axiomatically argue that there need to be fewer officers of characteristic Y.

Now, I acknowledge that this is pure speculation, and as far as I can tell there are no available data on the matter, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there is actually a disproportionate number of lesbian officers across forces, relative to the general population.

I make this speculation based on personal experience, and with an expectation that there might be some psychological variable which predisposes *some* lesbians towards more traditionally-masculine, or at least male-majority occupations.

Such occupations might, as a matter of course, involve conflict and a threat of physical danger or violence, which, over aeons (by virtue of psychology, culture, law or any other inconsequential variable) have been disproportionately represented by men.

Such occupations would include the military, police, fire and rescue, manual industry work, construction etc.

Conversely, there are many professions disproportionately represented by women, such as primary school teaching, nursing, psychology, care work etc.

There is even evidence to support a suggestion that homosexual workers may be disproportionately attracted to certain professions:

blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview…

But *if* it turns out to be true that there are a disproportionate number of lesbian police officers, relative to the demographic make-up of their force areas or the general population, I submit that it poses a rather uncomfortable question for the advocates of the policy.

Would it (ever) be acceptable to propose that, in light of this fact (if it is true and ever demonstrated), there should be affirmative action to hire more heterosexual female officers!

This is also, lest we forget, to propose that there should be *fewer* lesbian officers.

My contention is that it wouldn’t be. It would be ridiculous.

But by what argument can advocates of the presupposition and affirmative action join me in calling it so, when they have already decided on the paramount importance of unchosen characteristics in these considerations?

The advocates of the premise and policy have cornered themselves into having to defend a position despite its very, very ugly implications.

Again, as is tiresomely common, such implications are seldom considered thoughtfully enough.

I say that it would serve us all better to focus a little less on the characteristics by which we are grouped (and axiomatically divided), and to instead do follow the (now shamefully unfashionable) MLK maxim of judging one another by the “content of [our] character”.

(End.)