Isn't that what the naturalization debate is about? I'm talking about lawful permanent residents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_residence_(United_Sta

Isn't that what the naturalization debate is about? I'm talking about lawful permanent residents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_residence_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_residence_(United_St... They are not given the right to vote as well as a few other rights/privileges. If basing policies on generalizations is a 'bad idea', should we then give them the same rights/privileges as other people that live here and pay taxes? Nope, future generations of men but not women if you make that assumption No, future generations of both men and women. Both men and women benefit when society's standard of living increases. The status quo for women blows. How is the status quo bad for the vast majority of women? In all cases where the potential for harm is very high and there exist alternatives. The potential harm of accepting and encouraging destructive lifestyles vastly exceeds the harm done to the tiny minority that have a strong preference for those destructive lifestyles. The opposite of shaming women who do x doesn't have to be encouraging women to do x, it can be respecting them and allowing them to make their own choices. Path of least harm. You have no idea what the path of least harm is. Respecting someone's choice to engage in self-destructive behaviors can easily result in greater harm even for that person than discouraging them from engaging in those behaviors. On a society-wide basis, tolerating certain lifestyles can easily result in far greater harm to society than having a cultural stigma against those lifestyles. By this I mean characteristics you attribute to men do not apply to all men. Of course they don't. I'm speaking generally. Don't you now? No. By asking these you imply such data is possible to come by Why would that not be possible to come by in principle? and clearly that men and women are well-defined groups. Are you actually suggesting that we can't measure, say, the average height of men and the average height of women in some population? The vast majority of humans fit clearly into one of those two categories. Are you suggesting such information cannot be useful? For example, would that kind of data not be useful information to a clothing manufacturer? You're posing that these facts might exist, where they don't because the groups are not well defined to begin with. And this is why there's no point in me even bringing up any particular facts. In your opinion, they cannot even in principle be valid or meaningful. Until we can agree that it is in principle possible to extract useful information from data gathered about men and women, there is no point in debating whether some particular data suggests it's a good idea for society to treat them differently. that's just crazy. Why do you believe a priori that it is crazy? If everyone were more respectful of one another the world would be a better place, can we agree on that? No, not necessarily. Choices matter. Society has an interest in making sure that people make choices that are good for society. In lieu of data that would say it's good for society for some people to be deprived of their rights, is it not OK to choose a sane default action (ideal, if you will)? The problem here is that you've already defined away the possibility for such data to exist.