It’s political correctness gone mad! In that this is the insane version of how things are supposed to go. Jeez guys, just because something is “abuse” doesn’t mean it’s sexual harassment (the dynamics are hardly the same). Is it not enough that something was just abuse? This is literally just describing a hair style, no different from mentioning other haircuts or hair color. Are people now going to have to come up with elaborate euphemisms for bald people? “The dark haired guy over there - if he had any hair.”
I don’t recall him being called out, but I do know lots of people find him sexy. And the bald head must have been part of it?
I guess it makes some sense.
Of course, while way less common, woman can be bald, so is it a gendered trait? When I was little, across the street lived Melvin and Anita who were like my 3rd set of Grandparents. Anita was bald and wore a wig, and so I learned very little woman can be bald too.
If I sat on the floor my toddler twins would climb all over me as if I were playground equipment. We called it “Climbing Mt. Baldy.” This court ruling has ruined this happy memory for me so I am going to sue the court in the UK. Wish me luck!
That’s why I say the decision is likely to fall on appeal (if it is appealed, it may well not be). Whether it is a gendered trait or not, the decision doesn’t (in my view) adequately establish that. It’s just personal anecdote from the judges.
Oddly enough - even if this decision were in any way setting any kind of binding precedent - it still doesn’t preclude use of the word “bald” in a relevant context.
At best/worst, it just means that using it as an insult in the workplace is something you might get disciplined for.
If not insulting one’s colleagues is too difficult, perhaps working with other people should be avoided.
