That sound we're hearing is your willful ignorance and lack of interest in the subject you so vehemently argue over breaking the sound barrier, and the meaningless buzzing of someone who has zero knowledge about a subject yet continues to debate it with furor.
> you claimed that there was simply no scientific evidence for what Damore said.
No. I said that what Damore wrote is completely irrelevant, whether true or not, just as the question of whether there are other causes of cancer is irrelevant to the question of whether a chemical plant should be allowed to continue polluting the water. This makes his argument wrong.
> Now again, you never showed any actual evidence for that theory being either "better established" or having a "bigger effect".
No. I did show actual evidence. You refused to look.
> And it turns out the biggest issue was not sexism, contrary to what you claim
A. Never claimed that, B. that's not what that data shows in the slightest.
> Which, not entirely coincidentally was what Damore was claiming, though he made the much weaker claim that interest could be a contributing factor. Turns out he was right. Dead on right.
Not in the slightest. Again, his point was "please allow us to continue as before". That point is not remotely made by any of his irrelevant claims. The only reasonable arguments in favor of allowing the plant to continue behaving as usual are to show that 1. there's no pollution, or 2. pollution is harmless. He doesn't make such arguments.
For example, he says that we should stop assuming sexism is the cause of the gender gap. 1. There are good reasons to assume that, but regardless, 2. that assumption is completely unnecessary.
> they asked actual women instead of deciding on their behalf.
That's ironic, because the only thing that's been conclusively established beyond any doubt, as I've shown, is that society has been deciding on women's behalf for centuries (at least).
> Again, your claim is "sexism >>> interest".
Nope. My main point is: sexism is pervasive (and is bad although that's a value not a fact) => stop sexism. A more nuanced point, which I could discuss with someone who knows what sexism is, is that it's difficult to separate interest from sexism.
> Clearer now?
The only thing that's clear is that you have no idea what are the claims you supposedly oppose and haven't bothered reading what sexism is.
> where on earth did you get that from?
Uh, from Damore saying that diversity programs must be stopped/changed because he thinks a couple of papers show that there are other causes than sexism.
> However, it does show that sexism isn't the primary factor that explains why there are far more men in tech than women
NOOPE. If you bothered to read just a tiny bit about sexism, you'd see that the conclusion is quite the contrary. It's like you're saying, "a ha! it's not germs that cause disease, but contact with other people!"
Please, it's ridiculous to continue debating this if you have not the slightest idea what sexism is.
> And as to this whole "women in tech" being a coordinated effort to keep women out of positions of power
Sigh. Who said "coordinated effort?" Do germs have a coordinated effort? It's a dynamics! Please, just learn an itsy bitsy bit about this thing that you're talking about.
> The data show something else.
No, they don't. Of course, if you don't know what sexism is, you don't know what's not sexism.
> Simple math shows that gender disparities are the primary cause of skewed incidents of a sexist nature, not their result.
Please. This statement is total BS, beginning to end. We have no clear idea even what the effect size is or whether it exists at all, let alone to determine that it's an underlying cause. Even Steven Pinker doesn't belive that.
> Tech is a shitshow for everyone. If a woman were to recount the things that happened to me in my career, you would take it as the clearest indication of "sexism" possible.
Again, you don't know what sexism is, but you keep talking about it and getting it wrong every single time.