“Men are inferior at nursing or teaching” also deserves opprobrium.
Your assumptions about me are offensive bullshit.
It’s an interesting hypothesis. Maybe one day we’ll actually understand and be able to measure things like inherent aptitude and interest in certain fields.
Depends on what claims they make and the evidence behind them. Are they hypothesizing? Fine with me. Are they saying women are definitely inherently worse at STEM, and men are worse at caregiving and teaching, without full data and understanding of all the factors that go into these things? That’s not so fine with me.
Not to mention that it deserves strong social opprobrium, because the expression and spread of these ideas materially harms people and limits their options in life. The OP is arguing in favoring of coddling people who spout outright bigotry with zero evidentiary basis in the face of human beings facing discrimination. That’s reprehensible and disgusting.
Literally the first three paragraphs of the first link:
Two long-standing psychological theories – the empathising-systemising theory of sex differences and the extreme male brain theory of autism – have been confirmed by our new study, the largest of its kind to date. The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, used data on almost 700,000 people in the UK to test the theories.
The first theory, known as the empathising-systemising theory of typical sex differences, posits that, on average, females will score higher on tests of empathy than males, and that, on average, males will score higher on tests of systemising than females.
Empathy is the drive to recognise another person’s state of mind and to respond to another person’s state of mind with an appropriate emotion. Systemising is the drive to analyse or build a system where a system is defined as anything that follows rules or patterns.
First paragraph talks about the theory being confirmed by the study. They are not saying it’s the final word on the subject. It may well be challenged or disproved in the future. But right now, it is the working theory of this particular research scientist and some few others also cited.
None of the above should be seen as a threat to any position held that would encourage women to pursue interests in STEM and discourage all forms of systemic misogyny.
Interesting stuff. Maybe one day this will be a part of a better understanding of brains and hormones and gender and sex and abilities at things like STEM and caregiving and such. I don’t have any problems with such hypothesizing and experimenting.
Yeah.
Perhaps it would help if you read the links…?
It’s not about individuals. We can understand that men are on average taller than women, without saying that no tall women or short men exist. And AIUI the differences we are discussing here are much smaller than that.
Some people believe they are entitled to a legal sex change if they conform to certain gender stereotypes. Do they deserve social opprobrium?
Some people believe that “feeling like a woman” means someone is actually a woman. No scientific evidence supports classifying people in this manner. Is this deserving of social opprobrium?
Some people believe men and women have sexed brains that explain the existence of gender identity. No evidence supports this view. Is this deserving of social opprobrium?
I don’t think you can attack people like Damore without also attacking the ideas above. But you and other liberals aren’t doing that; in fact, much of the opprobrium is being heaped on those who are gender critical. Why shouldn’t someone look at this and conclude liberals are a bunch of hypocrites? That’s the question I keep coming back to. What is the defense for this apparent inconsistency?
Hypothesizing about potential differences is fine with me. Advocating that they are certain to exist and explain a significant amount of STEM or nursing (for example) disparities is not.
Assuming that the reverse is true can also harm people. If it turns out to be correct that women and men have different interests on average, then the only way to achieve equal representation in relevant fields would be to discriminate against men, and/or persuade women to do jobs they do not prefer. It may not be as harmful, but shouldn’t we be striving to avoid harm entirely?
Depends on their motivation. Is it for predatory purposes? Then yes. Is it because they are trans and want to be treated as their gender identity? Then no. Do you disagree?
Who cares about feelings? I don’t. I care about words and actions – the things people do that can affect others.
I’m sure many people think liberals are hypocrites. Many folks think the “gender critical” advocates are hypocrites. I think that discussion deserves its own thread.
Yes I strenuously disagree. Affirming sexism in the labeling of men and women is harmful all on its own, regardless of if predators exploit self-ID.
The book that prompted this thread is about this harm. If you raise girls and boys to believe that personality and sexual orientation dictates one’s gender, then surprise surprise you will see girls and boys diagnosing themselves as the opposite gender because of this sexist belief. Puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and sterilizing surgeries all follow from this dangerous line of thinking.
But notice that in this very thread, we see “social opprobrium” being heaped on this book. A book, I might add, no one here has even read.
Words and actions are affected when language and policies are redefined to allow self-determined “feelings” to be a sufficient criterion for being a woman. Allowing these feelings to be every bit as chauvinistic as Damore’s feelings about neurotic women means women are now being pressured to accept misogynistic males into their safe spaces.
I’m sure many people think liberals are hypocrites. Many folks think the “gender critical” advocates are hypocrites. I think that discussion deserves its own thread.
It’s relevant to this one because its relevant to information bias, intolerance of opposing opinions, and the perception that liberals—not conservatives—are more ideologically blinded in this regard. I really wish I could say this perception was groundless, but I can’t in good conscience.
I stand with you against “Affirming sexism in the labeling of men and women”. And yet I still feel that trans women should generally be treated as women (but trans women are not and should not be treated as cis women), and trans men should be treated as men. I don’t believe these conflict.
I’m not in favor of this belief, and neither are the vast majority of trans people and advocates. I think you’re using your own words, and the wrong words, to describe beliefs you disagree with.
I have no interested in pressuring women to “accept misogynistic males into their safe spaces”, and nor do the vast majority of trans people and trans advocates that I’m aware of. This is probably yet another difference in understanding of these beliefs.
And I’m sure many folks can’t, in good conscience, say that they believe that the “gender critical” position is consistent, logical, or moral. Hell, many folks can’t, in good conscience, say that they think women should be treated equally to men, or black people equally to white people. Who cares about the “good conscience” of strangers?
Our difference of opinion here comes from vastly different assumptions and understandings of the facts. I feel no need to rehash all this once again, especially considering how angry you got last time. I can live with the possibility that someone I admire thinks I’m very wrong.
I don’t think you do, based on comments you’ve made previously. That’s why I’m piping up right now. You seem to be condemning Damore for beliefs that appear awfully similar to ideas that are promoted uncritically on the left. The math doesn’t add up. It is undermining your persuasiveness in this debate.
I will repeat the questions I posed earlier:
I don’t think you can attack people like Damore without also attacking the ideas above. But you and other liberals aren’t doing that; in fact, much of the opprobrium is being heaped on those who are gender critical. Why shouldn’t someone look at this and conclude liberals are a bunch of hypocrites? That’s the question I keep coming back to. What is the defense for this apparent inconsistency?
I don’t think there is a defense for this inconsistency that holds water. I see lip service, but I don’t see well-reasoned arguments for dismissing Damore as a misogynist while upholding gender ideology. The latter comes from the same school of thought as Damore’s beliefs do.
The OP started this thread by pointing out the apparent contradiction behind ACLU’s free speech mission and the aggressive opinions expressed by one of its leaders about a book they don’t like. While I agree with others that this isn’t directly a free speech issue, I agree with the OP that it’s a symptom of a overreactionary mindset towards any idea that is even remotely ideologically controversial. I see this mindset as having potential implications to free speech if it’s allowed to influence public policy and educational curricula.
We, as liberals, need to take a hard look at ourselves. Are we really looking at things in a nuanced way like we like to act like we do? Or are we quick to label differing viewpoints as “garbage” and “bigoted” without actually debating them? It does seem like the left is losing its reputation for intellectual discourse.
If I agreed with you about what “gender ideology” means, then I’d agree with you about this supposed hypocrisy and inconsistency. But I don’t. I think your understanding of gender ideology is incorrect, and thus your beliefs about hypocrisy and inconsistency are based on an incorrect understanding of these beliefs. In short, I think you’re arguing a straw man. We’ve been through this before, but that is the disconnect in our understandings and opinions.
Cite: this thread.
You have made this assertion before. It is essentially “you’re wrong, I’m right”. Wouldn’t you agree that it’s lacking in something? Intellectual rigor, perhaps? A real refutation? You can’t show that I’m incorrect; you’re only able to say that I am.
It is weak.
We went round and round on this through dozens of posts, if not more, before. I tried my best, as I’m sure you did too. Why bother doing it again? It wasn’t much fun the first time.
You’re the one making the assertion that I’m wrong though. It’s fair for me to say this isnt persuasive without demonstrating why I’m wrong. Amazingly enough, you never demonstrated that even in that monster thread.
As for this thread, what I’m proposing is that us liberals try to do a better job of living up to the reputation that liberals used to actually have. If I had to take a bet on which side of the political aisle was the most at risk for ushering in censorship (and I mean the real deal…like criminalizing certain viewpoints), my bet would be progressives. I come by this opinion honestly, by looking at what is happening in Europe right now.