> that these arguments about innate biological traits are complicated by trans, non-binary, and intersex folks.
2% (outliers) of the population does not invalidate the trends of the other 98% This is just wrong.
> I disagree that it’s possible to write what he did about general populations, then walk it back to say “but of course it doesn’t apply at an individual level.”
Gorillas typically have black fur. So no gorilla can have white fur? Wat?
> there have been some really fabulous responses, including many laying out a lot of research that counters what was in the memo
I'm interested in this research. I have not seen it, nor has it been made available. The following book, with 2 female authors who seem genuinely interested and informed in related topics:
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Arent-More-Women-Science/dp/15914...
Let's at least present the field studies/research, which can throw existing clinical views into doubt. eg Delusions of Gender: The Real Science Behind Sex Differences by Cordelia Fine is at least a rigorous critique of possible flaws.
It's a little saddening, to have this dialog represent the views of an average engineer.
>2% (outliers) of the population does not invalidate the trends of the other 98% This is just wrong.
This is a strawman. She said "complicate" not "invalidate".
>Gorillas typically have black fur. So no gorilla can have white fur? Wat?
What actions do you wish to take based on the fur color of gorillas? Damore didn't just reach scientific conclusions about differences in genders. He went further and suggested actions based on these population differences.
To continue your analogy, one could say that Damore's argument comes down to "We only want white furred animals in our zoo, and gorillas typically have black fur, therefore we should ignore gorillas and look for Polar Bears instead". Whereas the other side might be "Given that gorillas typically have black fur, and we think Gorillas are a valuable part of a zoo, we should do extra work to locate the rare white-furred gorillas that do exist".
That's true. However, the trends are not complicated by the outliers. Her statement was meant to throw trending into question and I overstated by taking a bad position (phrase-wise).
> What actions do you wish to take based on the fur color of gorillas?
Provide more shaded areas (canopy or artificial), of course. I'm not sure who this elaborate "analogy" (populations vs individuals turned into a warped "industry is a zoo" metaphor?) is supposed to help.
> However, the trends are not complicated by the outliers.
Well, but, they are. A gender binary is a simplification. A full analysis would really need to take a look at things like trans and nonbinary people and how they interact with the trends. But such an analysis would be more complicated than the binary trends in the original document. That is, such trends are an imperfect model of reality, and to better match reality, one needs a more complex model.
>I'm not sure who this elaborate "analogy"
Nor am I, you're the one that felt the need to bring up Gorillas. I felt that was a bad analogy, and that by continuing it, it would reveal why it was bad.
> Well, but, they are. A gender binary is a simplification. A full analysis would really need to take a look at things like trans and nonbinary people and how they interact with the trends.
How about this: the memo was about men and women. The 98%.
>This is a strawman. She said "complicate" not "invalidate".
To what extent do specialized species (like ring species) complicate the concept of species in general? It lets us know that there are outliers that are complicated, but it doesn't complicate dog vs cat at all.
I don't, but I was pointing out the annoyance of such a statement. You could probably scrounge up such a paper on google scholar.
For example, black lives matter 's point was simply that some specific white people were biogted, and yet all lives matter is a thing. Which is an example of the inverse (generalizing specific complaints, vs. in this case, specifying general complaints).
To be clear this was meant to be a tongue in cheek rephrasing to point out what was problematic about the gorilla statement and the google memo, I do not believe this.
2% (outliers) of the population does not invalidate the trends of the other 98% This is just wrong.
> I disagree that it’s possible to write what he did about general populations, then walk it back to say “but of course it doesn’t apply at an individual level.”
Gorillas typically have black fur. So no gorilla can have white fur? Wat?
> there have been some really fabulous responses, including many laying out a lot of research that counters what was in the memo
I'm interested in this research. I have not seen it, nor has it been made available. The following book, with 2 female authors who seem genuinely interested and informed in related topics: https://www.amazon.com/Why-Arent-More-Women-Science/dp/15914...
who reached a similar conclusion to James Damore: http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/13/opinions/williams-ceci-women-i...
Let's at least present the field studies/research, which can throw existing clinical views into doubt. eg Delusions of Gender: The Real Science Behind Sex Differences by Cordelia Fine is at least a rigorous critique of possible flaws.
It's a little saddening, to have this dialog represent the views of an average engineer.