[TeMPOraL]

> by hidden biases which translate to social pressure

There are two kinds of biases here. Those which are just accidents of history and those which arise from the observable biological differences between sexes. If you deny the existence of the second group, you also have to deny that there are biological differences between sexes (apart from reproductive organs), at which point I'd suggest going outside and taking a look around.

Conversely, if you accept that different sexes have different strengths and weaknesses, you should expect nonequal representation of genders in various occupations even in the most perfect, utopian, egalitarian and meritocratic society.

My issue with the way gender equality is currently discussed is that people deny the existence of biological differences and their consequences, treating everything as baseless cultural bias that needs to be conquered.

(Actually, my real issue is with people who are being assholes about promoting their side. Which happens equally on both sides of the issue, and that makes the whole topic toxic.)

And whatever results are of those "decades of research" (I've never personally seen being invoked, by either side), they have to agree with observable reality - otherwise, they're just results of crap research. Given the state of psychology and social sciences, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest (and no, I don't approve or criticize research based on wich side it supports, I view all soft science research with very strong suspicion).

[Ntrails]

It's really not difficult to recognise that two statements can be true.

On average men are better at x than women

Given a requirement for someone who is at least k good at x, one cannot make assumptions about an applicants abilities based on gender

[TeMPOraL]

Yes, but if you accept those two statements as true, then it follows that:

Given x-skill is uniformly distributed among all people, you'll expect more men than women in fields which require candidates at least k good at x.

A lot of people seem to have trouble with accepting that last thing.

[pron]

> If you deny the existence of the second group, you also have to deny that there are biological differences between sexes (apart from reproductive organs), at which point I'd suggest going outside and taking a look around.

I don't deny the existence of the second group, but you'd have to prove that those biases are somehow justified, which is a hard task because there are very few completely universal and immutable biases (or at least biases that change at the same temporal and spatial pace as biology). So, in short, that seems to comprise of a very small, very insignificant, set of social biases.

> My issue with the way gender equality is currently discussed is that people deny the existence of biological differences and their consequences, treating everything as baseless cultural bias that needs to be conquered.

That's not how it's discussed. It's just that there is very little evidence that biological differences are a significant cause of the great power inequality we see in society between the sexes and among the races, and a lot of evidence to suggest that mutable social biases are by far the dominant cause. So there's very little reason to talk about the biological differences if so far they've not been shown to be too pertinent to the discussion of inequality.

> Which happens equally on both sides of the issue, and that makes the whole topic toxic.

But there is a big knowledge gap. Those in favor of feminism, while not immune from assholishness -- at least have decades of study to at least support the premise of their position, while those against have just their own personal feelings on the matter.

> they have to agree with observable reality - otherwise, they're just results of crap research.

They do.

> I've never personally seen being invoked, by either side

They're invoked often by the only side that has them. Most government policy choices refer at some point in their inception to academic studies.

> Given the state of psychology and social sciences, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest (and no, I don't approve or criticize research based on wich side it supports, I view all soft science research with very strong suspicion).

Suspicion is good, and it is quite probable that many specific findings are questionable, but when you're confronted with such a huge body of evidence -- from history, sociology, anthropology and psychology -- you must admit that it accounts to much more than a gut feeling (which is what the other side base their arguments on).

[Singletoned]

I'm quite suspicious about your statement that your side is supported by "such a huge body of evidence", whereas "the other side base their arguments on [...] a gut feeling".

I think from that we can safely assume that you (at best) massively overstate your position and massively understate your opponents.

[leereeves]

I agree, particularly when pron claims that history is part of the huge body of evidence against gender biases.

pron, what is the evidence from history against traditional gender biases?

[pron]

Why, that many of those biases disappeared completely after a social struggle. And I don't mean disappeared from the lawbooks, but from the minds of most individuals.

One notable example is the struggle for women's suffrage. For a long time it was a wide-held belief that women shouldn't vote because they lacked the mental state of mind for making decisions in matters of state. Then, after that idea slowly faded, other excuses were given from preserving tradition to encouraging women to stay at home because that's what's best for the children.

Other notable examples are women education, and especially allowing women to become doctors and lawyers (both medieval professions or earlier) only in the late 19th or early 20th century. It was obvious to everyone that women simply did not have the mental faculties required.

Yet, all of that has thankfully changed, society is better for it, and very few people still believe that women are unfit to vote or to be lawyers or physicians.

[leereeves]

And yet through all of that, some gender differences have remained.

History is open to interpretation. I actually see what you mentioned as evidence against your position.

It's clear that people were able to overcome pervasive biases far more extreme than our current biases.

And yet some argue that implicit biases are responsible for the remaining differences.

History shows that bias can be overcome even when overt and widespread. The intractability of the remaining differences in a nation where bias is widely opposed suggests a cause stronger than bias.

[pron]

> some gender differences have remained.

That just like saying that the fact there are a lot of things science has no answer for shows that those things can never be understood.

> some argue

Nobody who has studied the subject argues that, at least not regarding differences that greatly effect the change in the power distribution.

> The intractability of the remaining differences in a nation where bias is widely opposed suggests a cause stronger than bias.

No intractability. The struggle simply started with the big stuff, and now moves on. The pace of change hasn't slowed. History shows that anything that women or minorities struggled for, they eventually got and old entrenched biases dissipated.