4 ms·

You're introducing a logical fallacy here too, by arguing that "all white turkeys are gone," which is absolutely not the case for hiring male developers. If yo

You're introducing a logical fallacy here too, by arguing that "all white turkeys are gone," which is absolutely not the case for hiring male developers. If your hiring pipeline is working, and you're successfully hiring qualified, capable candidates who all happen to be male, there would be absolutely no reason for you to change your practices which may result in you not finding the competent developers you need. It is lowering standards if you have to transition from a working recruitment process to one which may not work, but ticks a diversity box. On the other hand, there's the possibility that by trying to recruit women specifically, that their hiring process could improve. But who is going to take such a risk when they've already got a working process, and no solid argument that changing it will bring in better workers.

titzer 9y ago
> You're introducing a logical fallacy here too, by arguing that "all white turkeys are gone," which is absolutely not the case for hiring male developers. I'm not arguing that either, but even if I was, it wouldn't be a logical fallacy as much as it would be an empirically testable fact, and if I was wrong it would be a factual error, not a logical fallacy. > It is lowering standards if you have to transition from a working recruitment process to one which may not work, but ticks a diversity box. I don't see how that lowers standards, it might just be ineffective. The salient point being that lowering standards is about standards (i.e. "fatness of turkeys"), not how many people you hire (number of turkeys). Now if you want to argue about whether specifically recruiting women would be _effective_, that's a different conversation, but my OP stands on logical grounds.