4 ms·

Sure. There's this one user named lawnchair_larry who believes that women are, on average, weaker performers in tech[1], that it's for biological reasons[2], an

Sure. There's this one user named lawnchair_larry who believes that women are, on average, weaker performers in tech[1], that it's for biological reasons[2], and that it's fair to discriminate against women in hiring decisions because of it[3]. Yes, he phrased some of his opinions as questions, but anyone with a fifth grade reading level can figure out the implied answer. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9960327 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9960327 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23125229 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23125229 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18186240 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18186240

lawnchair_larry 6y ago
Care to ctrl-f for “weaker” in your citation (which doesn’t even say what you claim) and paste the sentences immediately after? Here, let me help you: It should also be a possibility that they're [women] actually stronger performers in tech (I bet you reached for the down arrow before getting to that sentence). Pretending everyone must have equal ability and 50% of executives and 50% of programmers should be women doesn't get us anywhere. Obviously, [3] doesn’t even come close to approaching what you’re claiming I said. But you could not have accidentally proven my point any better if you tried, so thanks! I’ve had enough experience in these arguments to know that this will likely fall on deaf ears, but to restate my point in simpler terms: The probability that the natural distribution (as in, free from bias or cultural influences) for any profession would be perfectly 50/50 across gender lines is approximately zero. For those who don’t understand what an average is, this says nothing about the ability of any individual, and says nothing about whether men or women are better or worse for any given role.
- pgcj_poster 6y ago
  I saw that you said women might also be stronger in tech, but I know that you don't actually think that we are, because you also think that men are predominant in tech fields for biological reasons. Unless you think that women are stronger in tech and biologically predisposed against it, the only possibility is that you think women are weaker in tech. Further, if you didn't believe that it was women who are weaker in tech, it wouldn't be contextually relevant to bring up the possibility of a skill difference in a discussion about the prevalence of women in tech. Finally when confronted about this, you don't explicitly deny thinking that women are inferior in tech, you just point out that your comment didn't technically exclude the logical possibility that you thought otherwise. People reading your comments aren't stupid and aren't robots: the "I'm not touching you" game doesn't fool anyone. The chance that the natural gender distribution across a profession would be exactly 50/50 would be quite low, in the same way that any particular hand in a card game is unlikely. However, the chance that the natural percentage of women would be 50±n could be quite reasonable for low values of n. By contrast, the chance that we would get the actual distribution of men vs. women in (say) software engineering we see in the real word by chance alone is incredibly low. Every adult who isn't mentally disabled understands what an average is. However, saying "women are inferior" does not become less offensive when you add "on average" to then end. And yes, I only have specific information saying that you think women are inferior in tech, but every argument you've made could just as easily be applied to business, politics, or pretty much any area of life that has an important impact on the world.

lawnchair_larry 6y ago

Care to ctrl-f for “weaker” in your citation (which doesn’t even say what you claim) and paste the sentences immediately after? Here, let me help you: It should also be a possibility that they're [women] actually stronger performers in tech (I bet you reached for the down arrow before getting to that sentence). Pretending everyone must have equal ability and 50% of executives and 50% of programmers should be women doesn't get us anywhere. Obviously, [3] doesn’t even come close to approaching what you’re claiming I said. But you could not have accidentally proven my point any better if you tried, so thanks! I’ve had enough experience in these arguments to know that this will likely fall on deaf ears, but to restate my point in simpler terms: The probability that the natural distribution (as in, free from bias or cultural influences) for any profession would be perfectly 50/50 across gender lines is approximately zero. For those who don’t understand what an average is, this says nothing about the ability of any individual, and says nothing about whether men or women are better or worse for any given role.

pgcj_poster 6y ago
I saw that you said women might also be stronger in tech, but I know that you don't actually think that we are, because you also think that men are predominant in tech fields for biological reasons. Unless you think that women are stronger in tech and biologically predisposed against it, the only possibility is that you think women are weaker in tech. Further, if you didn't believe that it was women who are weaker in tech, it wouldn't be contextually relevant to bring up the possibility of a skill difference in a discussion about the prevalence of women in tech. Finally when confronted about this, you don't explicitly deny thinking that women are inferior in tech, you just point out that your comment didn't technically exclude the logical possibility that you thought otherwise. People reading your comments aren't stupid and aren't robots: the "I'm not touching you" game doesn't fool anyone. The chance that the natural gender distribution across a profession would be exactly 50/50 would be quite low, in the same way that any particular hand in a card game is unlikely. However, the chance that the natural percentage of women would be 50±n could be quite reasonable for low values of n. By contrast, the chance that we would get the actual distribution of men vs. women in (say) software engineering we see in the real word by chance alone is incredibly low. Every adult who isn't mentally disabled understands what an average is. However, saying "women are inferior" does not become less offensive when you add "on average" to then end. And yes, I only have specific information saying that you think women are inferior in tech, but every argument you've made could just as easily be applied to business, politics, or pretty much any area of life that has an important impact on the world.