ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
View Poll Results: Does gender privilege exist in the US?
Yes, gender privilege does exist in the US + I am male 73 76.04%
No, gender privilege does NOT exist in the US + I am male 5 5.21%
Yes, gender privilege does exist in the US + I am NOT male 16 16.67%
No, gender privilege does NOT exist in the US + I am NOT male 2 2.08%
Voters: 96. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Old 1st October 2017, 03:09 AM   #161
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,705
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
You outright ignored all the elements of sexual dimporphism in transgender people to continue to argue that men aren't really men and women aren't really women.
That's not true and you know it. What am I doing is disagreeing with your definition of what a man or a woman is. You are here accusing me of disagreeing with your definitions, as if that's somehow an error of rationality. It isn't. You say that a man saying that they are a woman makes them a woman. I disagree. You say this means I deny that a woman is a woman. Since I do not agree that they are a woman, that's tautological, but a pretty worthless argument. You need to establish why they should be considered women. And remember: I've agreed to call them women once they go through the whole transition. Apparently I'm quite willing to call a woman a woman once she's a woman.

Quote:
If you acknowledge that sexual dimorphism can explain some observations, you can't just abandon that when it doesn't suit your whims.
I don't abandon it at all. Trans women have male hormones and bodies, so the sexual dimorphism is on the male side for them until they transition. And vice-versa. What's the inconsistency, here?

Quote:
You move the claim from 'ran away from a thread', when no that's not what I argued because you will continue to post in a thread after all reason not to.
So I run away but I stick around. That doesn't make much sense, but I don't suppose you'll ever admit that you misspoke here.

Quote:
This is one of those arguments that never ceases to amuse me. I don't know how many guys it would take to kick my ass, therefore I can't say that five would do it.
Wow, that is a terrible analogy. You seem to be in a state of perpetual misunderstanding as to what my argument is.

I am NOT saying that gender discrimination doesn't exist. It absolutely does, and quite more than I'd like. But while it may be possible to spot it on an individual level (and even that can be difficult), you can't just look at a disparity in representation and call it discrimination. You have to look at all the possible other factors and eliminate them. If you can't, then you cannot determine how much discrimination is going on because you don't how how much of the percentage is attributed to these other factors. Do you disagree with any of that?

All I'm doing is bringing up other possible factors and asking people if they have accounted for them. So far no one seems to have. It's not my burden to establish how much of the disparity can be accounted for by biology. I'm simply poking holes in your theory by pointing out that you can't either.

Quote:
How about we eliminate the other variables so we can find out reliably, right? Let's test your hypothesis. Wait, that would entail addressing the stuff other people want addressed first. Oh well, guess we'll 'never know'.
What are you talking about now? We can absolutely do that. No one has responded to this challenge yet.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2017, 03:35 AM   #162
dann
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,705
"Yes, gender privilege does exist in the US + I am male," but not an American. And class privilege in the USA is even more flagrant: Income inequality in the USA (Wikipedia)
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2017, 07:05 AM   #163
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,094
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
That's not true and you know it. What am I doing is disagreeing with your definition of what a man or a woman is. You are here accusing me of disagreeing with your definitions, as if that's somehow an error of rationality. It isn't. You say that a man saying that they are a woman makes them a woman. I disagree. You say this means I deny that a woman is a woman. Since I do not agree that they are a woman, that's tautological, but a pretty worthless argument. You need to establish why they should be considered women. And remember: I've agreed to call them women once they go through the whole transition. Apparently I'm quite willing to call a woman a woman once she's a woman.
Yeah, no. You're still getting it wrong on a fundamental level and this ignorance is caused by this...



Quote:
I don't abandon it at all. Trans women have male hormones and bodies, so the sexual dimorphism is on the male side for them until they transition. And vice-versa. What's the inconsistency, here?
...being untrue. This ignorance is maintained by you having run away from discussing sexual dimorphic traits. You think that having a penis is the only sexually dimorphic trait, but in fact it isn't. Trans women tend to have female brain structure, hormone reactions, and chemical reactions. If you'd read the links in the other thread, you'd know that. It would also give you a place to anchor your speculative handwave of gender privilege.



Quote:
So I run away but I stick around. That doesn't make much sense, but I don't suppose you'll ever admit that you misspoke here.
Just because you're still talking, doesn't mean you didn't run from talking about sexual dimorphism. You actually ran away from that topic so fast, you apparently didn't even realize it was the topic.



Quote:
Wow, that is a terrible analogy. You seem to be in a state of perpetual misunderstanding as to what my argument is.

I am NOT saying that gender discrimination doesn't exist. It absolutely does, and quite more than I'd like. But while it may be possible to spot it on an individual level (and even that can be difficult), you can't just look at a disparity in representation and call it discrimination. You have to look at all the possible other factors and eliminate them. If you can't, then you cannot determine how much discrimination is going on because you don't how how much of the percentage is attributed to these other factors. Do you disagree with any of that?

All I'm doing is bringing up other possible factors and asking people if they have accounted for them. So far no one seems to have. It's not my burden to establish how much of the disparity can be accounted for by biology. I'm simply poking holes in your theory by pointing out that you can't either.
Wow, this is strange thinking. We know that gender discrimination exists, but we can't say it's a factor in the disparity in representation or other gender privileges? That's simply untrue base on reasoning alone, but we don't even have to rely only on that. Comparative cultural studies show that having less individual pressures and influences can even out such differences. It isn't difficult to look at say, 'x does this and has y, we don't do this have y-10, and because z is y on an individual scale, we should consider z an important factor'.

In short, you know and admit discrimination is a factor, so no, we don't have to eliminate all others to know discrimination is a factor to fight against. There being other contributing or exacerbating factors doesn't change that.



Quote:
What are you talking about now? We can absolutely do that. No one has responded to this challenge yet.

At this point I don't even know what you're asking for. How do you propose we eliminate all other factors? What degree of resolution are you going to accept? This looks to become a 'god of the gaps' argument.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2017, 07:22 AM   #164
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,705
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
...being untrue. This ignorance is maintained by you having run away from discussing sexual dimorphic traits.
If your intent is to have a conversation, could you please stop lying? Case in point:

Quote:
You think that having a penis is the only sexually dimorphic trait, but in fact it isn't.
The part you quoted mentions "bodies" and "hormones", which is not a complete list, and then you claim that I think "penis" is the only trait. How can you quote me saying one thing, and then reply as if I said another? I never said that "penis" is the only trait. So again, if your intent is to have a discussion, I suggest you read what I write more carefully, not just with the goal of finding a way to disagree with it.1

However, if your intent is to pat yourself on the back, then you're on the right path. Keep going.

Quote:
Trans women tend to have female brain structure, hormone reactions, and chemical reactions.
Well, that's not quite true, is it, since they have to take hormones for their transition.

Quote:
Wow, this is strange thinking. We know that gender discrimination exists, but we can't say it's a factor in the disparity in representation or other gender privileges?
Tyr STOP IT. Start by reading what I ACTUALLY WRITE. Once again you read one thing and reply as if I said another. I DID NOT say anything like you just wrote above. Re-read it, this time slowly and with the intent to understand, not just to reply, and then answer the question I asked in the middle paragraph.

Let's try again, slowly: A) Do you agree that men and women are biologically (physically, hormonally, etc.) different? B) Do you agree that this has an impact in how they will be distributed in a given field? C) Can you quantify by how much representation will differ in that field due to this?

Because if you answer Yes, Yes and No, then you're in agreement with me. If you cannot say by how much biology and other factors will create disparity, then you cannot know if and by how much discrimination affects the results.

Quote:
At this point I don't even know what you're asking for.
Yeah, because you're not actually reading what I write. If you're going to bother to reply to my posts, you could do better than perform an impersonation of ponderingturtle, but in more words.

1: I'm going to now coin "Belz...'s Fourth Law of Oversimplifications": Posters will treat a topic as a single entity rather than a collection of points, and treat disagreement on any of those points as disagreement on the whole. For some reason there's a lot of that going around. Too often my disagreement on the definition of "male" has been "interpreted" as me wanting to treat trans people as inhuman garbage. I guess when you want to virtue signal, that's useful, but not when you want to appear rational. ETA: I guess that if you accepted the idea that you're whatever gender or sex you believe to be, you did so through an appeal to emotion. It stands to reason that any disagreement on this will cause offense. That's what happens when you don't accept an idea due to reason. Reason is not offended when it's disagreed with.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか


Last edited by Argumemnon; 1st October 2017 at 07:27 AM.
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2017, 10:31 AM   #165
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,094
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
If your intent is to have a conversation, could you please stop lying? Case in point:



The part you quoted mentions "bodies" and "hormones", which is not a complete list, and then you claim that I think "penis" is the only trait. How can you quote me saying one thing, and then reply as if I said another? I never said that "penis" is the only trait. So again, if your intent is to have a discussion, I suggest you read what I write more carefully, not just with the goal of finding a way to disagree with it.1
Oh how I never tired of you telling others they're lying by summarizing what you said. I'm not so arrogant as to think I can convince you, but I engage for the lurkers.

You mean penis. I know you don't think you mean penis, but you mean penis (and pussy). It's the only metric that makes even marginal sense with your 'they're women only post op/treatment' definition of women. The much more important point here is that it doesn't even matter if you mean penis, skeleton, and what you think hormone treatment entails, it still make you drastically wrong. If you want a discussion, then make corrections to what you think are over-simplifications and move on to the actual arguments or criticisms.

Quote:
However, if your intent is to pat yourself on the back, then you're on the right path. Keep going.



Well, that's not quite true, is it, since they have to take hormones for their transition.
This again shows that you never read any of the links in the other thread and have made no effort to educate yourself on the topic. It's exactly true. It is not true for every hormone in every case, but the fact is that hormone treatments must correct for the likely different reaction to hormones that transwomen have that (generally) cismen don't. There are trans men and women who do self-treatment through diet leveraging this fact. Hormone treatments are sometimes just supplementing a hormone that the body isn't producing enough of, not changing how the body reacts.



Quote:
Tyr STOP IT. Start by reading what I ACTUALLY WRITE. Once again you read one thing and reply as if I said another. I DID NOT say anything like you just wrote above. Re-read it, this time slowly and with the intent to understand, not just to reply, and then answer the question I asked in the middle paragraph.

It's not my fault that taken as a whole your arguments contradict themselves. It's like you don't want to be wrong, and just can't put together that some valid pieces don't make the whole correct.

Quote:
Let's try again, slowly: A) Do you agree that men and women are biologically (physically, hormonally, etc.) different?
Duh.

Quote:
B) Do you agree that this has an impact in how they will be distributed in a given field?
Yes, more below.

Quote:
C) Can you quantify by how much representation will differ in that field due to this?
34.23 Ada units.

Here is where you fell into nonsense of self-contradiction. Can you quantify by how much representation will differ due to sexual dimorhpism? Also, what unit of measure? What metric?

I'm going back to my 'I don't know how many it would take to kick my ass' example. We don't know exactly how much discrimination and privilege effect the outcome so we can't know the exact number for representation in a field would represent equal opportunity, but it's much higher than it currently is in many/most of them. We know that it's higher than less than 20% of national political representatives (and we know this because other countries get damn near half and half).

Quote:
Because if you answer Yes, Yes and No, then you're in agreement with me. If you cannot say by how much biology and other factors will create disparity, then you cannot know if and by how much discrimination affects the results.
Nope, as above you've missed the point again. We know it isn't near zero. We know it isn't even near a host of other countries.


Quote:
Yeah, because you're not actually reading what I write. If you're going to bother to reply to my posts, you could do better than perform an impersonation of ponderingturtle, but in more words.

1: I'm going to now coin "Belz...'s Fourth Law of Oversimplifications": Posters will treat a topic as a single entity rather than a collection of points, and treat disagreement on any of those points as disagreement on the whole. For some reason there's a lot of that going around. Too often my disagreement on the definition of "male" has been "interpreted" as me wanting to treat trans people as inhuman garbage. I guess when you want to virtue signal, that's useful, but not when you want to appear rational. ETA: I guess that if you accepted the idea that you're whatever gender or sex you believe to be, you did so through an appeal to emotion. It stands to reason that any disagreement on this will cause offense. That's what happens when you don't accept an idea due to reason. Reason is not offended when it's disagreed with.
It's like I'm arguing with skepticginger.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2017, 10:48 AM   #166
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,705
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Oh how I never tired of you telling others they're lying by summarizing what you said. I'm not so arrogant as to think I can convince you, but I engage for the lurkers.
I'm sure they can tell that you're mischaracterising my posts. If it's not lying, then I have to question your ability to interpret posts.

Quote:
You mean penis. I know you don't think you mean penis, but you mean penis (and pussy).
Well, I'm glad that you're here to tell me what I mean!

Quote:
It's the only metric that makes even marginal sense with your 'they're women only post op/treatment' definition of women.
Then you know very little about biology and sex. Consult a doctor if you want to learn more about it.

Quote:
The much more important point here is that it doesn't even matter if you mean penis, skeleton, and what you think hormone treatment entails, it still make you drastically wrong.
For no other reason that I disagree with you, right? I mean, you can't explain why I'm wrong. You just insist that I am. Of course, since you can't even read why I write to you repeatedly, I'm not surprised that you have no opinion that you can defend.

Quote:
If you want a discussion, then make corrections to what you think are over-simplifications and move on to the actual arguments or criticisms.
I have. Didn't you read them? They're in the post you just quoted.

Quote:
Here is where you fell into nonsense of self-contradiction. Can you quantify by how much representation will differ due to sexual dimorhpism? Also, what unit of measure? What metric?
It's not a contradiction because I never held the opinion you think I held. I explained to you exactly what I meant in the post you quoted. Read it again for comprehension.

Quote:
I'm going back to my 'I don't know how many it would take to kick my ass' example.
It's still nonsense, and completely unrelated to my argument. That you think it is shows how little you understand it despite my numerous clarifications.

Quote:
We know it isn't near zero.
Yes we do. And?
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか


Last edited by Argumemnon; 1st October 2017 at 10:51 AM.
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2017, 08:18 PM   #167
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,094
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I'm sure they can tell that you're mischaracterising my posts. If it's not lying, then I have to question your ability to interpret posts.



Well, I'm glad that you're here to tell me what I mean!
It's the only metric that makes even marginal sense with your 'they're women only post op/treatment' definition of women. It's not my fault you're not keeping your arguments consistent with each other. You can't tell me why my interpretation is wrong, just that it is. You'll say 'hormones' and still be wrong about that.

Quote:
Then you know very little about biology and sex. Consult a doctor if you want to learn more about it.
Already have because of many friends and family including a sibling being trans, which is how I know how wrong you are. Sex and gender aren't the same. Get over it.



Quote:
For no other reason that I disagree with you, right? I mean, you can't explain why I'm wrong. You just insist that I am. Of course, since you can't even read why I write to you repeatedly, I'm not surprised that you have no opinion that you can defend.
This again shows that you never read any of the links in the other thread and have made no effort to educate yourself on the topic. It is not true for every hormone in every case, but the fact is that hormone treatments must correct for the likely different reaction to hormones that transwomen have that (generally) cismen don't. There are trans men and women who do self-treatment through diet leveraging this fact. Hormone treatments are sometimes just supplementing a hormone that the body isn't producing enough of, not changing how the body reacts. Trans and non-binary brain structures also show differences that align with their identified gender, not their birth one (or in between for non-binary).

Deja vu.

Quote:
I have. Didn't you read them? They're in the post you just quoted.
This is pretty ironic when taken with the above cutting you did to ignore what I've said, and again run away from the sexual dimorphism when it doesn't support the argument you want to make.



Quote:
It's not a contradiction because I never held the opinion you think I held. I explained to you exactly what I meant in the post you quoted. Read it again for comprehension.
I've read it, it doesn't explain your double standard. It's still a contradiction. If you insist that we have to know by how much to know if something is effecting representation for discrimination and social pressure, then we would also have to know that information for sexually dimorphic traits. I don't think we have to know that to know they have an affect, but you do.

Quote:
It's still nonsense, and completely unrelated to my argument. That you think it is shows how little you understand it despite my numerous clarifications.
We don't know exactly how much discrimination and privilege effect the outcome so we can't know the exact number for representation in a field would represent equal opportunity, but it's much higher than it currently is in many/most of them. We know that it's higher than less than 20% of national political representatives (and we know this because other countries get damn near half and half). You can't say why I'm wrong, but you say I am.

Deja vu.


Quote:
Yes we do. And?
If we know it's non-zero that means we know it effects representation! You're just trolling me now right? Right?
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

Last edited by tyr_13; 1st October 2017 at 08:19 PM.
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2017, 09:48 PM   #168
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,233
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
All the presidents have been males, 80% of Congress are males, nearly all fortune 500 CEO's are male, women have been voting for less than a hundred years, and some people are going to try and claim gender privileges balance each other out? LOL.

The sliding scale of privilege in this country starts with white men and ends with black women. If you're a white male in this country, you have so many advantages you have to be a complete loser to complain about anything.
This is the apex fallacy. You're looking at the top 1% of the highest status positions and pretending that this somehow trickles down to the average man. Ever heard of the term "the glass cellar"?
pharphis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2017, 09:58 PM   #169
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,233
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Because I can't think of any other factors that would explain the incredibly lopsided nature of men in leadership positions in every category in this country: business, government, and religion.

I'm all ears, if you have some suggestions. It's possible that a lot of women are brainwashed by religious indoctrination to not aspire to be in a leadership position, but I don't think that's a good argument. Women's rights have lagged the rights of everyone else: right to vote, serve on the front lines, abortion, etc. This society just isn't comfortable with women in power.



There would be some variations, sure.
Then I don't think you've thought very hard. Ever heard of hypergamy? Ever notice how it's nearly always women "marrying up" in terms of wealth/status?

Serving on the front line is not a right but a privilege, and for men a possible legal requirement... women don't have that obligation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscr...tes#Opposition


"It may not be doubted that the very conception of a just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it. To do more than state the proposition is absolutely unnecessary in view of the practical illustration afforded by the almost universal legislation to that effect now in force."
pharphis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2017, 10:13 PM   #170
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,233
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
There are some things so dumb only a professor could believe them. For one thing, understanding the physics of projectile motion does not require visualizing it. It requires a bunch of equations. Yes, I imagine that boys would have a much easier time writing their name in the snow; the notion that helps them understand that the force of gravity is 9.8 m/s/s is a bit hard to credit.
especially since urine and how water streams will break up in the air *forces* air resistance into the equation in a bigger-than-usual way.
pharphis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2017, 10:17 PM   #171
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,233
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
So people keep claiming, without supporting the claim.



Ran away? When do I ever "run away" in any thread, ever? And how does that characterisation sound, you think? Do you think it sounds like an argument?

No one's been able to say how much disparity we should observe given biological differences, so no one can say that the disparities are too great. That's a fundamental step that no one has taken. Ergo it is impossible to move further.
Or too little, even. It seems everyone is approaching this from one direction (this happened in the google memo thread as well) but if we accept that social dynamics play a role (they do since different societies have different disparities) then we have to accept that almost all of them are "wrong". Some will be too far in one direction and others in the other direction. But we seem to always see this as "there aren't enough women!" (again without stating what the expected value is)
pharphis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2017, 10:25 PM   #172
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,233
I voted male + I agree there is gender privilege. What I didn't realize is that this apparently refers to the sexist unidirectional definition of "men are privileged".

Men AND women are privileged, in different ways and to different degrees. This has been brought up earlier in the thread so I probably don't need to list examples but I will go with one powerful one:

Men are more likely to be sentences to jail and for longer than women. The reason why, I think, is related to agency. We see men as having more agency and women as having less. This leads to less responsibility for women (and therefore less jail, etc.) and more responsibility for men.

edit: and IIRC the magnitude difference between men and women vs whites and blacks is like 6x larger. People make a big stink about the white and black figures, but...

Last edited by pharphis; 1st October 2017 at 10:26 PM.
pharphis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2017, 02:36 AM   #173
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,705
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
It's the only metric that makes even marginal sense with your 'they're women only post op/treatment' definition of women.
Not at all. You're the one who is applying an overly simplistic definition of what a man or woman is. Kindly don't project your own thoughts onto me.

In reality it's almost entirely genetic, but it is expressed in a great number of ways (primary and secondary characteristics, hormones, brain structure, bone and muscle structure, etc.) and I suppose one way to actually define "man" is to verify if enough of those boxes are checked. One thing you don't do is simply ask the person what they believe.

I know you don't want to hear this but gender dysphoria is a mental disorder, just like schizophrenia. And just like schizophrenia we don't treat those who have it like subhuman garbage; we help them just like we would a blind person or one with a missing leg. Now, I don't know if there exists medication to cancel out the effects of dysphoria, but I do know that one treatment is transition. As a courtesy, at the very least, we can consider that they have their stated sex once this procedure is complete. Humane and largely correct. So what's wrong with that? Aside from your emotiona reaction to reading it, that is.

Quote:
Already have because of many friends and family including a sibling being trans, which is how I know how wrong you are.
You know I'm wrong because of anecdotal evidence? That's weak.

Quote:
If you insist that we have to know by how much to know if something is effecting representation for discrimination and social pressure, then we would also have to know that information for sexually dimorphic traits. I don't think we have to know that to know they have an affect, but you do.
That's not what a contradiction is. You're also not describing what I'm saying, again.

Quote:
We don't know exactly how much discrimination and privilege effect the outcome so we can't know the exact number for representation in a field would represent equal opportunity, but it's much higher than it currently is in many/most of them.
That's a contradiction. If you can't know how much, you can't know if it's much higher.

Quote:
We know that it's higher than less than 20% of national political representatives (and we know this because other countries get damn near half and half).
Non sequitur. Cultural factors are also in play. Or are you contending that there is little to no discrimination in those countries comared to yours?

Quote:
If we know it's non-zero that means we know it effects representation! You're just trolling me now right? Right?
I never said it had no effect. At the risk of repeating myself, all I said is that we don't know how much of an effect each factor has, and therefore we don't know if and by how much discrimination affects representation.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2017, 06:59 AM   #174
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
We don't know exactly how much discrimination and privilege effect the outcome so we can't know the exact number for representation in a field would represent equal opportunity, but it's much higher than it currently is in many/most of them. We know that it's higher than less than 20% of national political representatives (and we know this because other countries get damn near half and half). You can't say why I'm wrong, but you say I am.
Your entire argument here is actually illogical. Other countries being close to 50/50 and ours being close to 20% tells you nothing about what the correct percentage should be. Perhaps it should be 10%. How do you know? You don't. All you know is that you want it to be close to 50/50.

Furthermore, this presupposes that there's some universal percentage that all countries would obtain in the absence of discrimination. But that's not logical either. Plenty of things other than discrimination might make these percentages different. Suppose, for example, that we have a country with low flat taxes and little government social supports. In such an environment, there is a strong incentive to get the highest paying job you can, regardless of your personal work preferences. Suppose that we have a second country with high, very progressive taxes and generous government social support. There is much less incentive to get a high-paying job, and more incentive to pick a job you enjoy.

If women naturally prefer certain jobs (like primary education) based on factors other than salary, then we should expect that the gender imbalance in many professions would be larger in the second country than the first. And that's absent any gender discrimination.

So not only do you not know what the "natural" level of gender disparity is, there's no reason to believe that it's even constant or unaffected by factors other than discrimination.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2017, 07:07 AM   #175
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
Men are more likely to be sentences to jail and for longer than women. The reason why, I think, is related to agency. We see men as having more agency and women as having less. This leads to less responsibility for women (and therefore less jail, etc.) and more responsibility for men.
There are other possible explanations (for example, men have been conditioned to treat women more gently), so I don't put much weight in this largely untestable theory of motive.

However, the observation itself appears robust. I can't find the link at the moment, but I recently heard that there's actually much less disparity in sentencing from female judges. Women don't give other women a pussy pass.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2017, 11:37 AM   #176
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Wow. That is a *lot* of privilege to pack into such a small post.
How so?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2017, 11:42 AM   #177
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Just as an observer of this discussion, you seem to be doing everything to avoid addressing his variables
Given that Argumemnon hasn't even addressed his own variables, what's the point? Argumemnon's argument seems to be "Some of it is explained by biology. Nobody can provide a specific measurable amout of it that is explained by biology. Until someone can tell me exactly how much is explained by biology, we can't possibly talk about any other cause."

Even though it's Argumemnon making the claim that some of it is explained by biology, he punts and acts like the inability of other people to provide a super-specific measurement for *his* claim means he has somehow destroyed all other arguments and has won the internet.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2017, 11:48 AM   #178
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I am NOT saying that gender discrimination doesn't exist. It absolutely does, and quite more than I'd like. But while it may be possible to spot it on an individual level (and even that can be difficult), you can't just look at a disparity in representation and call it discrimination. You have to look at all the possible other factors and eliminate them. If you can't, then you cannot determine how much discrimination is going on because you don't how how much of the percentage is attributed to these other factors. Do you disagree with any of that?

All I'm doing is bringing up other possible factors and asking people if they have accounted for them. So far no one seems to have. It's not my burden to establish how much of the disparity can be accounted for by biology. I'm simply poking holes in your theory by pointing out that you can't either.
This is crapola. Several times in the past few years you've been provided solid evidence, based on very well designed studies that explicitly and completely controlled for all those other factors... and you've always dismissed them with some snatched-out-of-your-rear blanket dismissal. Your claim that nobody has accounted for them is baloney. You're not 'simply poking holes', you're playing debate games as if it's winning you points on your imaginary scoreboard.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2017, 11:53 AM   #179
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,705
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Given that Argumemnon hasn't even addressed his own variables, what's the point? Argumemnon's argument seems to be "Some of it is explained by biology. Nobody can provide a specific measurable amout of it that is explained by biology. Until someone can tell me exactly how much is explained by biology, we can't possibly talk about any other cause."
Hey, look! It's another strawman! Collect them all!

Quote:
This is crapola. Several times in the past few years you've been provided solid evidence, based on very well designed studies that explicitly and completely controlled for all those other factors... and you've always dismissed them with some snatched-out-of-your-rear blanket dismissal. Your claim that nobody has accounted for them is baloney.
You are misrepresenting those other threads and what went down in them, but that doesn't really surprise me. That's exactly what I expect from you. But you keep talking about these studies and solid evidences without providing them for the assembled people reading this thread. I wonder why.

Quote:
You're not 'simply poking holes', you're playing debate games as if it's winning you points on your imaginary scoreboard.
No.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2017, 12:09 PM   #180
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
That's a contradiction. If you can't know how much, you can't know if it's much higher.
This is incorrect. It looks you've fallen into something akin to a continuum fallacy.

Just because you don't have a measure for thing doesn't mean you can't compare it. I can look at two piles of pebbles, and without having to count either of them, tell that one pile is bigger than the other pile.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2017, 12:10 PM   #181
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
There are other possible explanations (for example, men have been conditioned to treat women more gently), so I don't put much weight in this largely untestable theory of motive.

However, the observation itself appears robust. I can't find the link at the moment, but I recently heard that there's actually much less disparity in sentencing from female judges. Women don't give other women a pussy pass.
That'a really shockingly offensive term.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2017, 12:12 PM   #182
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,705
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Just because you don't have a measure for thing doesn't mean you can't compare it. I can look at two piles of pebbles, and without having to count either of them, tell that one pile is bigger than the other pile.
Sure, in such a simple scenario. But if you have no idea which factors count for how much, how can you say that one of them is too high or too low? How would you begin to know? That's the part no one's addressed so far. It's not that discrimination doesn't exist; I'm opposed to the idea of looking at disparity and simply ascribing it to discrimination without first taking other factors into consideration. And NO, you can't remove them from the equation if you don't know their value.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2017, 12:13 PM   #183
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
You are misrepresenting those other threads and what went down in them, but that doesn't really surprise me. That's exactly what I expect from you. But you keep talking about these studies and solid evidences without providing them for the assembled people reading this thread. I wonder why.
Because after presenting them to you repeatedly over the years and listening to you (and a couple of others) dismiss them out of hand for completely frivolous reasons, I'm tired of doing the legwork for you to ignore because it doesn't fit with your pre-conceived notion of how things work.

Do you ever actually make and support any claims of your own?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2017, 12:15 PM   #184
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,705
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
That'a really shockingly offensive term.


Seriously, grow a thicker skin. Men get called dicks all the time.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2017, 12:16 PM   #185
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,705
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Because after presenting them to you repeatedly over the years and listening to you (and a couple of others) dismiss them out of hand for completely frivolous reasons, I'm tired of doing the legwork for you to ignore because it doesn't fit with your pre-conceived notion of how things work.
Once again, disagreeing with your conclusions or with the validity of your evidence is not "dismissing them out of hand". You'd say that no matter my reasons for doing so. Try me.

Quote:
Do you ever actually make and support any claims of your own?
Whenever I make them. When I'm questioning other people's claims, however, I always find it amusing when they ask me to do their work for them.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2017, 12:28 PM   #186
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Sure, in such a simple scenario. But if you have no idea which factors count for how much, how can you say that one of them is too high or too low? How would you begin to know? That's the part no one's addressed so far. It's not that discrimination doesn't exist; I'm opposed to the idea of looking at disparity and simply ascribing it to discrimination without first taking other factors into consideration. And NO, you can't remove them from the equation if you don't know their value.
Your entire approach to this is wrongheaded. It may not be your intention, but it appears willfully wrongheaded.

The methodology for isolating impacts isn't secret, and it's been used repeatedly. There are two basic approaches.

In the first, you look at a large enough sample of people and you attempt to quantify and control any differences other than the attribute of interest. This is what most rate studies do - they look at large numbers of people in the same or equivalent jobs, then they compare the average wages received for the two groups of interest. Good studies also look at the tenure in that role, educational background, etc.

You routinely reject these studies. You always seem to, in some fashion or other, assume that the men are actually more qualified in some way or other that the study doesn't account for... or somehow it's the result of women's choices and you know, babies and stuff.

The other method is to create an artificial scenario, where the situations are exactly the same except for the attribute of interest. In those studies, the only possible factor that can produce different outcomes is due to the attribute being studies. Everything else is explicitly controlled.

You routinely reject these studies two. If I recall, you generally end up making some unfalsifiable claim that the methodology isn't up to snuff for some reason that only you can tell, and that the peer reviewed scientific journal;s in which they're published somehow count manage to catch.

Either way, it's entirely possible to be able to identify and quantify the impact of only one of many factors, without having to explicitly quantify all possible factors.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2017, 12:39 PM   #187
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Once again, disagreeing with your conclusions or with the validity of your evidence is not "dismissing them out of hand". You'd say that no matter my reasons for doing so. Try me.
Fine, I'll try it AGAIN.
http://www.leadershippsychologyinsti...ward-vs-heidi/
Quote:
Heidi Roizen was a successful Silicon Valley venture capitalist who became the subject of a case study at Columbia Business School. Professor Frank Flynn, presented half his class with the case study with Heidi’s name on it and gave half the class the same case study with her name changed to “Howard”.The students rated “Howard” and Heidi, equally competent, but they liked Howard, but not Heidi.

by Maria Katsarou,

Specifically, students felt Heidi was significantly less likable and worthy of being hired than Howard and perceived her as more “selfish” than Howard. Deborah Gruenfeld, of Stanford’s Graduate School of Business, cited the same study, adding that “the more assertive a student found the female venture capitalist to be, the more they rejected her.” The essence is that research has demonstrated a negative correlation for women between power and success. For men, the relationship is positive, i.e., successful men are perceived as more powerful and are revered. A fundamental challenge to women’s leadership arises from the mismatch between the qualities traditionally associated with leaders and those traditionally associated with women.” The assertive, authoritative, and dominant behaviors that people link with leadership tend not to be viewed as attractive in women.
http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2014...ather-jennifer

Quote:
In their study, Moss-Racusin and her colleagues created a fictitious resume of an applicant for a lab manager position. Two versions of the resume were produced that varied in only one, very significant, detail: the name at the top. One applicant was named Jennifer and the other John. Moss-Racusin and her colleagues then asked STEM professors from across the country to assess the resume. Over one hundred biologists, chemists, and physicists at academic institutions agreed to do so. Each scientist was randomly assigned to review either Jennifer or John's resume.

The results were surprising—they show that the decision makers did not evaluate the resume purely on its merits. Despite having the exact same qualifications and experience as John, Jennifer was perceived as significantly less competent. As a result, Jenifer experienced a number of disadvantages that would have hindered her career advancement if she were a real applicant. Because they perceived the female candidate as less competent, the scientists in the study were less willing to mentor Jennifer or to hire her as a lab manager. They also recommended paying her a lower salary. Jennifer was offered, on average, $4,000 per year (13%) less than John.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Whenever I make them. When I'm questioning other people's claims, however, I always find it amusing when they ask me to do their work for them.
When do you make them?

Oh wait... you never *actually* make claims, right? You just imply a claim but you don't *actually* make it... that way whenever anyone responds to your implied claim, you can call them a liar because that's not what you *actually* said! What an awesome strategy!
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2017, 12:50 PM   #188
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,233
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
That'a really shockingly offensive term.
What should it be called? An ovary pass? It's crude but I think the point is the alliteration and understanding of what the term means: Women get away with what men can't get away with. At the very least, their punishments are much less severe for the same crimes
pharphis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2017, 12:52 PM   #189
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
That'a really shockingly offensive term.
Why are you more offended by the term than by the actual discrimination? Your priorities seem... misplaced.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2017, 12:57 PM   #190
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
This is incorrect. It looks you've fallen into something akin to a continuum fallacy.

Just because you don't have a measure for thing doesn't mean you can't compare it. I can look at two piles of pebbles, and without having to count either of them, tell that one pile is bigger than the other pile.
In your example, you are in fact measuring the piles, even though the unit is not counts. You could describe the measurement as height, width, solid angle of view, but there is absolutely a measurement taking place inside your brain.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2017, 01:11 PM   #191
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,705
Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
What should it be called? An ovary pass? It's crude but I think the point is the alliteration and understanding of what the term means: Women get away with what men can't get away with. At the very least, their punishments are much less severe for the same crimes
Yeah but it's a lot easier to get stuck on a term and call it offensive than to address the actual argument, which runs counter to the idea that men have it easy and women are victims of society. (ok, some of that may be a bit strawmanish, but I felt like using hyperbole)
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2017, 01:36 PM   #192
SteveL
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 117
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Just because you don't have a measure for thing doesn't mean you can't compare it. I can look at two piles of pebbles, and without having to count either of them, tell that one pile is bigger than the other pile.
Unless one or both of them are occupying holes of indeterminate depth.
SteveL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2017, 02:53 PM   #193
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,739
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Have you noticed how it's heretical to even discuss sexual dimorphism in humans as a cause of observations?
As a side note sexual dimorphism in humans in not as pronounced as it is in many animals.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2017, 02:55 PM   #194
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,705
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
As a side note sexual dimorphism in humans in not as pronounced as it is in many animals.
Oh, absolutely. I wouldn't want to be a male spider.

But it's still an important factor in homo sapiens.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2017, 05:10 PM   #195
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
What should it be called? An ovary pass? It's crude but I think the point is the alliteration and understanding of what the term means: Women get away with what men can't get away with. At the very least, their punishments are much less severe for the same crimes
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Why are you more offended by the term than by the actual discrimination? Your priorities seem... misplaced.
I AM offended by the discrimination. But calling it a 'pussy pass' is just about as bad as calling the increased sentencing for black mean '****** tax'. Either way, it's necessarily derisive, offensive, and comfrontational.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2017, 05:13 PM   #196
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Yeah but it's a lot easier to get stuck on a term and call it offensive than to address the actual argument, which runs counter to the idea that men have it easy and women are victims of society. (ok, some of that may be a bit strawmanish, but I felt like using hyperbole)
A bit?

I've pretty consistently argued against how the courts treat child custody in divorces, which unfairly deprives men of their parental rights. I've also argued against the social mores that make it extremely difficult for men to get positions in child care, especially pre-school aged child-care. And while it's somewhat less difficult, there's still a huge amount of unintentional discrimination for men in any care-giving field.

So yeah, I'd say it's hyperbole.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2017, 05:39 PM   #197
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,547
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
A bit?

I've pretty consistently argued against how the courts treat child custody in divorces, which unfairly deprives men of their parental rights. I've also argued against the social mores that make it extremely difficult for men to get positions in child care, especially pre-school aged child-care. And while it's somewhat less difficult, there's still a huge amount of unintentional discrimination for men in any care-giving field.

So yeah, I'd say it's hyperbole.

??

You're joking, surely?
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2017, 05:49 PM   #198
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
??

You're joking, surely?
Some of it may be intentional, but I think a large amount of it is unintentional. Take nursing, for example. I don't think that most hospitals intentionally discriminate against male nurses... but they do so unintentionally because nursing simply isn't a 'manly' career. A male nurse must somehow not be a real man, and thus they get treated different, and are less likely to get hired in the first place.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2017, 05:59 PM   #199
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,705
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
A bit?

I've pretty consistently argued against how the courts treat child custody in divorces, which unfairly deprives men of their parental rights. I've also argued against the social mores that make it extremely difficult for men to get positions in child care, especially pre-school aged child-care. And while it's somewhat less difficult, there's still a huge amount of unintentional discrimination for men in any care-giving field.

So yeah, I'd say it's hyperbole.
Hey, give me some slack. Hyperbole is a great way to illustrate a point. You just need to make sure it's clear you're exaggerating.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2017, 06:00 PM   #200
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,705
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
??

You're joking, surely?
As I said earlier (or in the other thread?) this particular idea is unfalsifiable. No matter what happens, it can be twisted or reworded to "support" the conclusion. No apparent bias? Must be unconscious bias. Woman disagrees? Internalised misogyny.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:02 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.