DEIs rejection does not include that assumption at all. It means that you think the best person for the job should get the job, not just the person who ticks the most diversity boxes. Policies like “50% of all board positions need to be women” assumes that 50% of the best people for the position are women, which isn’t the case a lot of the time, especially in male dominated industries.
If the best person for the position is a gay black woman then she should get the job. Likewise if a straight white male is the most qualified and best fit, he should get it. Merit wins.
Calling people a DEI hire has definitely been weaponised, but the fact that champions of dei see that as an insult kinda proves that DEI is what its opponents say it is - unfair.
This EO is nothing to do with DEI though, in any way.
I don’t see it as an insult, it is used as one. Especially by this admin.
It’s the idea that some is only there because of DEI and without it, their capabilities wouldn’t have been enough. Which is wrong.
Before DEIA was implemented, minorities were often not hired, because of their background, even though they were the more capable candidate. And this admin is a perfect example, that “DEI hire”" is projection.
Is Hegseth more capable than his predecessor? Gods no. His signal escapades are enough to prove this.
Is RKJ more capable than his predecessor? Is anyone in this majority white, majority male admin better suited for their job than the more diverse admin before it? No. But still, that admin gets labeled as DEI Hires, not because anyone could prove that DEI prevented a more deserving candidate from filling that position, but because they belong to minorities.
I’m not going to argue that the best person for the job always gets the job, even without DEI, because they clearly don’t. Unfortunately in the real world most of getting a job is who you know not what you know.
My original point was that this EO has nothing to do with DEI, and that still stands.
This EO fits into a larger pattern of targeting minorities under the banner of “fixing DEI”. The original point of your argument, however, was that this admin does not try to erase trans people.
"The left-wing gender insanity being pushed at our children is an act of child abuse. Very simple. Here’s my plan to stop the chemical, physical and emotional mutilation of our youth,” Trump said about Trans Kids.
This entire EO he put out on Day one is entirely about erasing trans people without even mentioning them as “trans”. Kicking them out of the military is another step towards this goal of ultimately banning them from every facet of life.
It’s not “targetting minorities”. It’s excluding people with a medical/mental condition from serving in the military, of which many are already excluded.
The original point of your argument, however, was that this admin does not try to erase trans people.
The original point of my argument was that “trans people don’t exist” has nothing at all to do with this EO, which it doesn’t. The EO specifically is recognising that they do exist. How do you guys not get this? How would you say “trans people don’t exist” but also “trans people are banned from the military” in the same EO?
This entire EO he put out on Day one is entirely about erasing trans people without even mentioning them as “trans”.
No, that EO is about recognizing that sex is binary and that sex cannot ever be changed no matter what “gender identity” you claim to have.
DEIs rejection does not include that assumption at all. It means that you think the best person for the job should get the job, not just the person who ticks the most diversity boxes. Policies like “50% of all board positions need to be women” assumes that 50% of the best people for the position are women, which isn’t the case a lot of the time, especially in male dominated industries.
If the best person for the position is a gay black woman then she should get the job. Likewise if a straight white male is the most qualified and best fit, he should get it. Merit wins.
Calling people a DEI hire has definitely been weaponised, but the fact that champions of dei see that as an insult kinda proves that DEI is what its opponents say it is - unfair.
This EO is nothing to do with DEI though, in any way.
I don’t see it as an insult, it is used as one. Especially by this admin.
It’s the idea that some is only there because of DEI and without it, their capabilities wouldn’t have been enough. Which is wrong.
Before DEIA was implemented, minorities were often not hired, because of their background, even though they were the more capable candidate. And this admin is a perfect example, that “DEI hire”" is projection.
Is Hegseth more capable than his predecessor? Gods no. His signal escapades are enough to prove this.
Is RKJ more capable than his predecessor? Is anyone in this majority white, majority male admin better suited for their job than the more diverse admin before it? No. But still, that admin gets labeled as DEI Hires, not because anyone could prove that DEI prevented a more deserving candidate from filling that position, but because they belong to minorities.
I’m not going to argue that the best person for the job always gets the job, even without DEI, because they clearly don’t. Unfortunately in the real world most of getting a job is who you know not what you know.
My original point was that this EO has nothing to do with DEI, and that still stands.
This EO fits into a larger pattern of targeting minorities under the banner of “fixing DEI”. The original point of your argument, however, was that this admin does not try to erase trans people.
"The left-wing gender insanity being pushed at our children is an act of child abuse. Very simple. Here’s my plan to stop the chemical, physical and emotional mutilation of our youth,” Trump said about Trans Kids.
Sec. 2. Policy and Definitions. It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.
This entire EO he put out on Day one is entirely about erasing trans people without even mentioning them as “trans”. Kicking them out of the military is another step towards this goal of ultimately banning them from every facet of life.
It’s not “targetting minorities”. It’s excluding people with a medical/mental condition from serving in the military, of which many are already excluded.
The original point of my argument was that “trans people don’t exist” has nothing at all to do with this EO, which it doesn’t. The EO specifically is recognising that they do exist. How do you guys not get this? How would you say “trans people don’t exist” but also “trans people are banned from the military” in the same EO?
No, that EO is about recognizing that sex is binary and that sex cannot ever be changed no matter what “gender identity” you claim to have.