[harry8]

No way I agree with that at all.

s/sex/race/g see how you go with that.

s/sex/sexual preference/g likewise.

Those aren't arguments by any stretch they just highlight where too look.

There has always been really crappy, nasty arguments that people with characteristic X have a tendency to Y therefore we should/can/will be under-considered for being able to Z. To ignore that and the utterly false, pseudo-scientific garbage used in support really is living in denial. To go the other way and say the characteristics exist for a specific case/characteristic requires hard evidence that stands up to vigorous verification, for mine. I don't see that. I see pseudo-scientific garbage. Does that make me from Mars or Venus?

[read_if_gay_]

I agree we need to be careful with concluding “therefore we should/can/will be under-considered for being able to Z” because it’s easy to become ham fisted there.

But that doesn’t mean we should disregard a sound observation in itself. Yes, it may be politically incorrect, but it’s still real. For example:

s/sex/race/g Black people tend to commit crimes more often.

s/sex/sexual preference/g Transsexuals tend to commit suicide more often.

Both of these are statistically true. What matters is what you conclude. Should we just get rid of blacks and transsexuals? Or is there a root to these issues that we can work on?

[harry8]

Please Google "confounding factors."

I have no further wish to continue this conversation at all in any way. I have a general tendency that way.

[read_if_gay_]

> Please Google "confounding factors."

sigh That's exactly what I was saying in my last sentence.

You should take a minute to actually understand the post you're replying to. Especially if, as you almost figured out yourself, you have a general tendency to strawman and be snide about it.

[harry8]

>I must be a terrible person because all that "women are like this, whereas men are like that" stuff strikes me as epically sexist and extremely shallow.

Confounding factors are THE thing that make this kind of thing utter bullsht even if* there's data. But there isn't data.

Do you understand the point I made that you responded to now? I'll ignore the condescension in your response above because it's against the rules around here to respond to it other than by noting it.

[read_if_gay_]

So for the sake of the argument let's make up a utopian scenario "group X is Y, but it is so exclusively because of this clearly identified confounding factor Z".

It obviously doesn't follow that group X isn't Y anymore. It just means group X is Y and Z.

If someone says "let's accomodate group X by accomodating Y-ness", and you go and say that's shallow, X-ist, utter bullshit, then you are in denial that group X is Y.

> But there isn't data.

Is this denial again?

> condescension

Sorry, I acknowledge that I was needlessly being a dick. But don't get on the high horse over it. It was just in response to you needlessly being a dick.