> I think this piece acts as a reductio ad absurdum of some of its premises. When your chain of reasoning leads you to the conclusion that "women are likely to

> I think this piece acts as a reductio ad absurdum of some of its premises. When your chain of reasoning leads you to the conclusion that "women are likely to bring diversity to a male founding team, and that’s not what founding teams need" it should be obvious that something has gone wrong Nooo! Reductio ad absurdum means "obtaining two statements that contradict each other", not "obtaining a statement that sounds immoral to me". If the latter were valid reasoning, previous generations could have used it to prove the existence of god, because disbelieving in god was immoral to them. I guess we could call such arguments "reduction to enemy" instead.