I'm responding to the section about bio-psychological differences between the sexes. I'm not disagreeing, just augmenting.
The nuance I'd like to add is making explicit is that it appears today that males and females do differ somewhat psychologically ON AVERAGE, for partly innate reasons (not 100% cultural as I used to believe) - howeve…
I'm responding to the section about bio-psychological differences between the sexes. I'm not disagreeing, just augmenting.
The nuance I'd like to add is making explicit is that it appears today that males and females do differ somewhat psychologically ON AVERAGE, for partly innate reasons (not 100% cultural as I used to believe) - however that broad average doesn't tell us anything much about an individual's proclivities or abilities, so sex should never in itself be relevant to, say, hiring. Each person should be evaluated individually, not assumed to be typical of their population group and judged thereby. However, because of those differences at the aggregate statistical level, disparities in proportions do not *automatically* imply discrimination or an unlevel playing field (though of course those remain potential causes, partial or total). So I would not a priori assume that if 51% of Google programmers are not women, that in itself proves sex discrimination. (Nor does it excuse actual discrimination).
We can potentially create a society which is relatively equal and fair to individuals of all population groups (equal opportunity for individuals); or we could seek a society which enforces equal aggregate statistics across population groups (equal outcomes for groups). We cannot have both, tho, so long as population groups differ in the way they convert opportunities to outcomes, for various reasons. If a culture elevates chess playing or basketball or music, they will tend to have disproportionate success in those areas, given anywhere near equal opportunity. That's part of accepting diversity. And this can go for sex as well, whether the statistical level differences in ability or interest derive from biology or culture.
Evaluating individually is exactly what I'm arguing. You're doing what most people on the left do when I bring this up; react with arguments against compartmentalizing anyone based on sex. Which I'm in total agreement with. I'm simply saying let's not ignore facts and let's challenge the VALUES and assumptions behind them rather than pretend they don't exist (which is what's led us to the regressive left's denial that sex is even a thing, and that a woman is anyone who says he is). I'm arguing we acknowledge these differences with, "Well, that's interesting, but this woman does this allegedly male thing very well and these guys over here do these allegedly female things really well, so who cares in the long run." With two exceptions: Sperm donor and surrogate mother.
I NEVER argue or suggest we should pigeonhole people based on sex generalities, yet people always react to caution as if I did ;)
I'm responding to the section about bio-psychological differences between the sexes. I'm not disagreeing, just augmenting.
The nuance I'd like to add is making explicit is that it appears today that males and females do differ somewhat psychologically ON AVERAGE, for partly innate reasons (not 100% cultural as I used to believe) - however that broad average doesn't tell us anything much about an individual's proclivities or abilities, so sex should never in itself be relevant to, say, hiring. Each person should be evaluated individually, not assumed to be typical of their population group and judged thereby. However, because of those differences at the aggregate statistical level, disparities in proportions do not *automatically* imply discrimination or an unlevel playing field (though of course those remain potential causes, partial or total). So I would not a priori assume that if 51% of Google programmers are not women, that in itself proves sex discrimination. (Nor does it excuse actual discrimination).
We can potentially create a society which is relatively equal and fair to individuals of all population groups (equal opportunity for individuals); or we could seek a society which enforces equal aggregate statistics across population groups (equal outcomes for groups). We cannot have both, tho, so long as population groups differ in the way they convert opportunities to outcomes, for various reasons. If a culture elevates chess playing or basketball or music, they will tend to have disproportionate success in those areas, given anywhere near equal opportunity. That's part of accepting diversity. And this can go for sex as well, whether the statistical level differences in ability or interest derive from biology or culture.
Evaluating individually is exactly what I'm arguing. You're doing what most people on the left do when I bring this up; react with arguments against compartmentalizing anyone based on sex. Which I'm in total agreement with. I'm simply saying let's not ignore facts and let's challenge the VALUES and assumptions behind them rather than pretend they don't exist (which is what's led us to the regressive left's denial that sex is even a thing, and that a woman is anyone who says he is). I'm arguing we acknowledge these differences with, "Well, that's interesting, but this woman does this allegedly male thing very well and these guys over here do these allegedly female things really well, so who cares in the long run." With two exceptions: Sperm donor and surrogate mother.
I NEVER argue or suggest we should pigeonhole people based on sex generalities, yet people always react to caution as if I did ;)