[said]

You strike me as reasonable. I would appreciate if you could answer a couple of questions.

1. If there are indeed biological differences between sexes that could help explain different aptitudes/predispositions for different intellectual pursuits, should it be firable to say so?

2. If boys and men are discriminated against in order to pursue equal outcomes, should they be allowed to voice opposition?

I won't challenge anyone who answers. Thank you.

[rayiner]

> 1. If there are indeed biological differences between sexes that could help explain different aptitudes/predispositions for different intellectual pursuits, should it be firable to say so?

You need to unpack this into a few different things:

1) Are there cognitive differences between the sexes? Probably true--but we don't have a great idea of what they are.

2) Do those cognitive differences explain different aptitudes for different intellectual pursuits? No evidence for this in the context of computer programming. Which is why Damore's memo was so intellectually weak. The reasoning was basically "studies show women are people oriented" --> ??? --> "men are biologically predisposed to prefer programming."

3) Is it okay to fire people for saying things that are true? Businesses aren't free speech zones. Actions that jeopardize team cohesion, recruiting goals, company image, etc., are and should be fireable offenses. If someone at Google prepared and circulate a memo on how advertising is evil and destroying America, they should be fired, truth of the matter aside.

4) Everyone is entitled to an opinion, to speak on their own behalf, on their own time. People don't have to associate with you if they don't like your opinion. If you make a lot of money and send your kids to private school, you don't tell a room full of democrats "who cares about public education, let's cut the top tax rate." And if you do and people get salty, you don't say "but don't I have a right to speak on behalf of my own interests?"

[pokemongoaway]

1) People have been fascinated with this and have studied it for decades. Just because it isn't quantified, doesn't mean we have no idea what they are 2) You are choosing to frame other's arguments incorrectly and then attacking those imperfections. Men and women in the countries "most equal" are polarized even more in their career choices. 3) People high up in Facebook & Google have publicly questioned advertising & social media addictiveness without public backlash. The memo was firing back at policies that jeopardize team cohesion - in Damore's own words. You don't need free speech inside of a company to discuss data and reference studies. 4) Your #4 doesn't make sense but does demonstrate that you think in a very 'partisan politics' style.

[dang]

> Hard to have a conversation with someone who just flat out lies at every turn

This thread is awful enough without people stooping to personal attack. We ban accounts that do this. Moreover you've violate the site guidelines quite a bit and we've had to warn you before.

We won't ban you this time, but please (re-)read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules from now on if you want to keep commenting here.

[ncallaway]

> If there are indeed biological differences between sexes that could help explain different aptitudes/predispositions for different intellectual pursuits, should it be firable to say so?

First, I'll note that "should it be firable" in the question is a little bit ambiguous. I'm interpreting it as "should a company be allowed to fire an employee for this", and not as "should a company fire an employee over this".

If you believe in at-will employment, then yes. Truth does not protect you from being fired.

I'm not a huge fan of at-will employment in general, but I think even in this context the 1A freedom of association makes it problematic to prevent companies from firing people for their speech. Even truthful speech.

As an individual has the right to speak, without interference from government actors, the employer has the broad right to choose who they associate with. Restricting that right is problematic.

> 2. If boys and men are discriminated against in order to pursue equal outcomes, should they be allowed to voice opposition?

Of course they should be allowed to voice opposition. The government should not interfere with their speech in any way. Further, the government should not discriminate against those individuals based on that speech.

However, as they are allowed to voice their opposition their may be social consequences for doing so. Speech often carries social consequences—some I agree with and some I don't. For me, how appropriate or proportional those social consequences are depend very significantly on the content and tone of the particular voiced opposition and the social response. That makes it somewhat harder to respond to a general question.

You are free to challenge my responses. I'm happy to discuss these ideas.

Some similarly constructed questions I would return:

1. If there are not biological differences between sexes that could help explain different aptitudes/predispositions for different intellectual pursuits—but a coworker asserts that such differences exist, that your sex is the one with less aptitude—could you see how upset employees and applicants of that sex?

2. If women have traditionally been discriminated against in this industry, and a co-worker voices support for this ongoing discrimination in a way that makes them uncomfortable, should they be allowed to complain about that co-worker? Should their complaints be taken seriously?

I similarly won't challenge you if you answer.