Or is it just the TUC assuming that all LGBT are such delicate flowers that the normal interaction of humans beings is something they must be defended from?
The reason for asking is a new report from the TUC talking about the sexual harassment of the LGBT at work. We get the usual weasel words, of course we do. But here’s the headline:
Survey finds 70% of LGBT people sexually harassed at work
Study shows ‘hidden epidemic’ with BME women and those with disabilities most affected
This does rather depend upon our definition of “harass” doesn’t it? An insistence that one of the few hundred a year who have the cruelest cut of all show off the scar in the canteen would indeed be unacceptable harassment. But how far does this go?
…while one in eight (12%) LGBT women said they had been seriously sexually assaulted or raped at work.
There’s the usual weasel. Lumping in together something we all adamantly insist is wrong – rape – with something far more common and also subjective. Just what is the definition of serious sexual assault being used here? Asking for a date twice?
And, well, the definitions:
Jokes about sex? Have any of these people ever met human beings? We being a species which is notably interested in sex after all. Such things as concealed ovulation, the existence of titties, even high heels, rather showing that. Anyone who thinks we’re not has obviously never eavesdropped on a knitting circle.
In fact, what is being used here as a definition of sexual harassment would satisfy the most prudish of Victorian housewives*. Actually, given the number of children that usually turned up, perhaps Victorian maiden aunts would be a better comparison.
It’s tempting to shout that people should just grow a pair but given the subject under discussion that’s the one thing that no one can do without that correct genetic endowment. But to be more serious for a moment, this is human society we’re talking about. Among adults that is – all of whom need to be a little more robust than 30% complaining about “unwelcome verbal sexual advances”. How the hell does anyone ask for a date if they’re not willing to risk refusal? Such risk taking not being something gay men are known to be shy of.
*No, they didn’t put pantaloons on pianos to stop people thinking about legs. The idea that the un- clad is sexier than the semi- would disprove the existence of lingerie.