>

Always the poor men being trotted out by some dude lol.
Can't we all just be allowed time off and reasonable accommodations for medical issues? Why get rid of this altogether when you could just approve it for medical issues for all? >

Some countries added period leave. I think it’s dumb because it should just be medical leave. If a woman can’t work because the period is debilitating and she can’t take off work on medical grounds — there’s something seriously fucked up about the medical leave policy. >

I could be wrong but I guess it’s more about virtue signaling than actual solving any problems. >

I see it more as one of those 'I shouldn't have to explicitly point this out... yet here we are' kind of issues. Like, yeah, a woman should be able to take medical leave if her periods are debilitating, but there's asshole bosses out there who don't believe in that shit so we have specifically put that on the books to take that decision away from the assholes of the world. >

Yeah, it's just a backwards way of addressing it.  
It would be way more effective to state something like, "Because apparently this needs to be explicitly stated: Complications, difficulties, etc. related to the menstrual cycle are included under 'medical conditions that prohibit effective completion of your job'.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is an ass."
It's the trifecta of honest, fair, and virtue signaling. >

Glad I live in a country were the employer can’t ask about the kind of medical condition. >

Oh, don't get comfortable.  They can't legally ask about it plenty of places here, but they can demand a doctor's note... because you know, we're children and can't be trusted to know when we're too ill to work.  Of course, they don't have to pay you enough to actually go see a doctor, which they also actively lobby in support of policies that keep the cost of high.
So yeah, just because they can't ask doesn't mean they won't try to find a way to deny it.  Hopefully your government isn't quite as bought and paid for as it is here in the good ole' home of ~~freedom~~ corporate oligarchy, the US. >

Doctors notes for employers here can not have any information about the diagnosis on them. Only day the note was issued, and expected date when the employee can be back at work. >

Here, that’s not really the issue. It’s more that you cannot afford to see a doctor. Not only do you miss a few days’ pay, but you have to give the doctor a couple weeks’ pay to get the note that allows you to keep your job. For a lot of people, that would then result in not making rent for that month, so they just go to work sick and then all their coworkers are put in the same position. >

Here, doctor is paid through mandatory insurance. So the visit itself is free. Sick pay is 100% from day 1. After 7 weeks continuous sickness it’s reduced to 70%, if the sickness is not work related. If it is work related (eg you broke your leg on the way to work, there’s complications and you can’t work for more than 7 weeks) you keep your full pay. >

That's a bit of a misleading article title, it's "discrimination risks towards men suffering from long-term medical conditions".
Really, it should be accepted that everybody has days when they are unable to function (mentally or physically) and it shouldn't have to "grin and bear it" and come in to work. >

So instead of starting the acceptance of such things by granting women more rights (causing a precedence for men with conditions to follow up on it) they just outright block the motion. >

Giving leave to one gender and not another is sexist. >

I disagree. Men and women have different needs. Men should be able to take time off for their medical issues too, but this law doesn't seem to be about general medical leave. >

Actually, the arguments are sound, however the reaction to the arguments was unsound. They said it would discriminate against men with long term medical conditions, which leads to the question of why every single medical condition needs an individual law and not just a blanket "medical leave when needed" law that includes all medical conditions that can cause long but not permanent absences from work.
This trying to keep everyone working and in competition with each other needs to end. >

I know a solution for that: amend those rights to everyone who needs them. Regardless of gender. Now I want to see their excuse for why this would be bad. >

That would be reasonable though, and corporations don't like reasonable. Better to just keep everyone competing against each other so they don't realize it's the CEOs fucking us all. >


Reacting to the response, the committee chair, the Conservative MP Caroline Nokes, questioned the government’s commitment to the issue of menopause.
In a letter to the health minister Maria Caulfield, Nokes said she was disappointed that “very little new work has been committed to by thegovernment” in response to the committee’s report, as she expressed concern that the government had ignored what she termed the “significant evidence base” for menopause being seen as a “protected characteristic”.

lmao she didnt think the tories would be against them >

Tories vote against expanding workers rights. Business as usual. >

Maintaining their tradition since the 19th century. >

The conservative party were the people who banned child labour in the 19th century. They wanted revenge against the liberals who abolished the corn laws, reduced food prices and annihilated agricultural rents. >

Well, no more Viagra!! Discriminates against women, no? >

When you look at the age distribution of the bulk of viagra sales you'll see that it lines up with the ridiculed hormonal shift men go through.
Because men go through a big hormonal change just as women do. Society just doesn't want to hear this and ridcules this time in a mans life by calling it a midlife crisis and making penis jokes. Because yes, one of the changes is a noticable difference in hardness and the endurence of erections.
It's difficult to deal with because of the taboo surrounding the male body and the ease with which society marginalises these issues in an attempt to cement toxic masculinity.
It's in this light that I see your remark where you propose to take away medicine provided by the NHS. It's a hatefull sexist remark since nobody is arguing that the NHS medications to aleviate menopause should be taken away are they?
This proposal is about facillities and provisions at work to help women who go through hormonal changes.
Some fear this might lead to discrimination. I fear it is. >

Uh, realities that men and women have different biological with different issues is the discussion. And society can not provide one thing for one sex without doing it for another. For societies benefit. So, Viagra is not for women, but just for men,  to continue a sex life which is not in society's benefit. So, to prevent having something just for men, as this story is against benefits of physiologic change that just occurs with women, Viagra should not be covered. And to suggest that a gradual decrease in testosterone is equivalent to menopause is to denigrate the great change women go through. No, men do not go through the drastic hormonal,  functional, psychological change that women do. 
You suggest that women not be considered a special class in some  medical needs. Where does  it end for you? Does society need female labor, or not? >

this is not how men work
Andropause is real. It's a medical condition that needs intervention.
And I'll teach you another new taboo thing about the male body. We have a hormone cycle which severely impacts mood and emotions. Testosterone drops significantly from march to may. Symptoms include moodiness, muscle cramps, emotional instabillity, depression, lack of sex drive and irritabillity.
These symptoms are so severe that suicides spike during those three months. In april testosterone is at its lowest. Guess what month always has the highest suicide rate. Yup april. >

Everyone's first instinct is to say "PC gone mad" when the real story here is politicians keep writing shitty laws without doing the hard work to see what effect they have on other laws. 
The last 25 years are just a series of "something must be done" knee jerk reactions and frantic law writing without the actual work of governance. >

That's sorta the conservative party's MO, regardless of what country we're talking about. >

Labour party were just as guilty of this in the 00s it became a trend to satisfy media headlines.
The lords for all their faults were actually a good backstop on this as they would knock law back that had issues. There was institutional knowledge and no need to cover their arse because they don't have to answer to an electorate. 
The problem though,is governments got sick of the lords "getting in the way" and packed the place with donors sycophants and idiots. Once the taboo of putting anyone you wanted in was broken it became and shithsow just like the rest of the system. >

Edit: seems I misunderstood what this law was actually about. and was more based on accommodations at work rather than what is and isn't allowed to get time off of work, so my post missed the point.
The idea that specific protections for those experiencing menopause are discriminatory is utterly insane. >


The idea that specific protections for those experiencing menopause are discriminatory is utterly insane.

It's the conservative party. Their goal is to stop the improvement of any worker protections. Then they justify it after the fact. That's why their justifications are always terrible. >

Okay, I'm confused. How does making a law to protect women going through menopause(which men do not go through)  equal discrimination against men? If being accountable to the law for talking or acting in a stupid hurtful manner is discrimination, then discriminate away. >

this is not how men work
It equals discrimination because men go through andropause at that age.
Nobody knows about andropause because we choose to ridicule men that go through any kind of discomfort and bodily change.
You may know andropause by it's derogatory names: midlife crisis and grumpy old men.
It's a very big adjustment that is usually accompanied by depression, emotional upheaval, moodswings, muscle cramps, loss of sex drive, erectile dysfunction and loss of muscle mass.
Andropause lasts 15 - 20 years.
While men go through it they continuously have to listen to jokes about getting old, not being able to get it up or the classic: every break from a brown suit wearing life with zero enjoyment is now a midlife crisis for everyone to joke about.
These combined factors are why suicide rates are highest among middle aged men and in broader strokes, this societal mentality is the reason why men almost quadruple the suicide stats when compared to women.
So yes. This proposal constitutes discrimination because it is needlessly gendered.
Another example of needlessly gendered initiatives are the provisions towards the hormonal swings that women go through. Men also have a hormone cycle that strongly impacts how their body and mind functions. It's a yearly cycle and the downturn lasts from march to may. Yes, you read that right. That's three months of feeling down, wanting different things, muscle cramps, being emotionally unstable and not being able to perform as normal.
You can see these three months in all sorts of statistics like suicides which peak during march until may. Most suicides happen in april because that's when testosterone levels are at their lowest.
There is also zero awareness about this being an issue despite the fact that half the world has to endure a three month long mood swing that's so severe that it's a driving force  between the suicide differences between men and women. >

Holy shit. Thank you. Not only does this explain the why for me, but I now have all the terms and info I need to further my own research. 
Also...wtf... this explains some of the stuff I've been going through the last few years. I thought I was either nuts or it was a weird cyclical depression or something. All the doctors would do was prescribe antidepressants which made me actually depressed(no clue how that works), so I gave up on that and have just been dealing with it. >

Sick leave for disabled people (when experiencing a moment of particular difficulty with their disability) is discriminatory against typically abled people! Back to work, cripples! >

Are you indicating women are disabled or less capable of working just as well as men? >

Good detective work, dipshit. Really got me there.
Different people have different needs. Some women when on their period feel incapable of working comfortably or with any level of focus, like if you were sick. this a long term feature of their body, much like some disabilities. It's almost like workplaces should be required to accommodate the needs of their workers.
Also strange that your response implies disabled people are inherently less valuable than able bodied people. >

Interesting that you think someone's value is directly tied to what they're able to do. >

Nope, that's yours bud. >

Shouldn’t it already be covered under the equalities act for disabilities? The government should atleast give employers training on what to do in these situations >

God the UK is such a dumpster fire >

Don't worry, you have us yanks to look down on. >

Eh the US and UK are pretty much equal, just in different ways. The US is bad in the way that it's having a pretty straightforward fascist phase, the UK is bad in the sense that it has the same stupid ideas as America but it is coated in some dusty ass politeness. >

I feel like lately the UK is trying to become the USA and you guys better get a handle on it asap. I know you don't want to end up like this. Go grab some French and start rioting, we need some country to rescue those of us left in the USA that have a little bit of sanity left at some point. >

So why don't they make all medical conditions protected characteristics?
Also what exactly is the justification on menopause being a protected characteristic? Do employers care whether their employees have periods or not? >

Edit because I can't respond to the person who responded with a herbal rec: that's on my list of supplements to avoid. A lot of the supplements for menopause are things that break down into estrogen or chemicals that our bodies read as estrogen. The symptoms of menopause I have are from having less estrogen. And my cancer is fed by estrogen, so adding estrogen back into my body is a no go, and be careful about willynilly recommendations like that. Could be very dangerous to someone who doesn't have the ability to check into medical stuff or doesn't have access to medical professionals to run supplements by before taking. Also an example of thinking menopause symptoms are solvable for everyone. It isn't. Hence the need for having menopause sufferers recognized as a protected class. 
I'm currently going through surgical menopause because of cancer treatment. I'm 38. The sudden drop in estrogen has led to many medical issues including
dry eyes triggering my chronic eye condition, which makes screen time a challenge;
hot flashes leading to only getting 2-5 hours of sleep per night and only 2 hours max in a row (I have slept 6 hours twice this year so far);
sexual dysfunction because of dryness that now requires me to see a pelvic floor physiotherapist;
hemorrhoids and UTIs;
worsened ADHD because estrogen makes ADHD stimulant meds work better, so I'm trying to cobble together meds that will get me back to 75% of my previous abilities (My ADHD is harder to deal with than the cancer at this point, with no solutions available).
This is on top of joint pain from my cancer meds, nerve damage from surgery and radiation treatment, and other chronic conditions. And all the physio I have to do for those things is a legitimate timesuck.
I am supposed to head back to work in June. I am fifty-fifty about whether I can do my job anymore at all. I cannot do my job without accommodations that's 100% for sure.
Estrogen controls so much. I cannot take estrogen because it feeds the cancer. Without legal paths for accommodation, I'm fucking unemployable. And if the legal paths are too challenging to use, I'm unemployable. >

This doesn't already fall under the disability part of the equality act? It sounds like your circumstances is more out of the norm than for most woman so I would've assumed it would be classed as a disability or aligned more with the long-term medical condition mentioned in the article than simply under the banner of menopause. >

You would be amazed how many health conditions do not count as a disability, and unfortunately if a health condition doesn't actually count as a disability then you get basically zero legal protection. If a company deems you to have taken too much sick leave, and that sick leave is not due to a disability, they can absolutely sack you (there are processes that they need to go through, yes, but they can still do it). >

And not offering protections for people going through menopause leads to discrimination against people going through the menopause, which is something about half of all humans will experience. 
Also, as I explained on another comment, protected characteristics in the equalities act are open-ended for a reason, so if they add menopause as a protected characteristic then people not going through menopause can sue for discrimination on those grounds in the same way that a white person can sue for discrimination on the basis of race, a straight person can sue for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and a man can sue for discrimination on the basis of gender. >

No, nothing of the sort - just the current laws being formatted in such a manner as to specifically avoid such a situation where protections for one group leads to harm of another. Not being able to discriminate against people for something that happens to 50% of the population is NOT discrimination against the other 50%, and adding menopause as a protected characteristic is not discrimination against men. >

So do men have the same protections when they have to take off work for similar ailments/symptoms?
I mean most of the negative symptoms of menopause are things men can also experience for numerous reasons. >

They would have the exact same protections as women have for non-menopause related symptoms, just like they currently have the same protections as women do for non-pregnancy related symptoms with pregnancy being a protected characteristic. If adding menopause to the list discriminates against men then so does having pregnancy on the list. >

Perimenopause (the hormonal rollercoaster leading up to Menopause that can start in the late 30s early 40s) is completely debilitating for some women, can last for 7-10 years and affects women, their partners, families and careers. It's not just about hot flashes and middle age spread. 
The r/menopause subreddit has a great support community and an excellent Wiki with all the FAQs covered. I agree though that anyone, of any gender should be able to take a Duvet day when they need it - like accessibility, flexible workplaces benefit everybody. >

Men can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies. 
We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. >

I mean, funny joke, but trans men are real lol >

All women have the right to have babies, even ones that are infertile for any reason.  Besides, science is catching up with being able to fix biological problems. >

I think giving trans women functional wombs & eggs is a bit of a pipe dream, just like real AI. It'll hopefully happen in the future, but I doubt it'll be in my lifetime.
Thankfully, we apparently have had some success with letting two females create offspring. >

I don't know UK law at all so maybe this is a stupid question. But I'm going to ask it anyway:
What's wrong with giving people time off for medical needs? If someone is unable to work because of menopause or a smashed testicle or a headache, what's wrong with sick leave?
EDIT: Redditors in this thread who think "menopause" = "your monthly period" >

Pay wall >

Discriminate against women so we don't discriminate against men. Clearly you know who is valued more >

How is this discrimination against men? Someone getting time off for an ailment/condition I don't have isn't discrimination against me.
If a colleague gets time off for cancer treatment it's not discriminatory if my work get ticked off with me because I took every Monday off for a month because I felt "sick".
A woman taking time off because of menopause symptoms should have no bearing on whether I have/need any sick time. >

But it isn't about theeeeem unfaiiiir. Ffs idk what their issue is but it's pathetic. >


“Its refusal to even consult on reforming equalities law doesn’t make sense and we urge it to look again.”

"Let men work more" - strange definition of equality you have there... >

Maybe men should install their own uteruses so that they too can deal with:
Irregular periods
Vaginal dryness
Hot flashes
Chills
Night sweats
Sleep problems
Mood changes
Weight gain and slowed metabolism
Thinning hair and dry skin
Loss of breast fullness
In fact, let's give them periods too, so they can experience all the fucking joys of menstruation and it coming to an end. And let's have them carry babies to term and be harshly judged for having to undergo c-sections due to not having vaginas. >

Can we not just accept that men and women are different and shouldn't be treated the same in the workplace or anywhere else? >

Here is what the Mayo clinic says the most common menopause symptoms are: 
~~Irregular periods~~
~~Vaginal dryness~~
Hot flashes
Chills
Night sweats
Sleep problems
Mood changes
Weight gain and slowed metabolism
Thinning hair and dry skin
~~Loss of breast fullness~~
The 3 that I crossed out do not apply to men. But neither are they commonly debilitating to the point of missing work under disability. The other symptoms could and do affect men for various reasons. If those symptoms are valid enough reason to miss work because menopause, then they should be valid enough for males under non-menopause. Otherwise, this is literally discriminatory. >

Yea the vaginal dryness and thinning of the tissue can cause an incurable uti symptom issue. In case you don't know a severe, constant burning pain in your vag is fucking untenable. Lmk when men have that. >

Sure, right after you show me where women get prostate pain.