Leap: An Online Community for Women

> The data you present does not explain anything.

Not when you look at it subjectively and only focus on the specific subset that supports your argument. I believe that's called 'selection bias'.

> without any understanding of why women are not interested in technology jobs, there is no way to understand the gender disparity in technology.

The scientific understanding is there. It's just not the answer you want it to be and hence you ignore it.

> This is very unpleasant. First you assume I'm "ignoring the data" when I actually discussed what the data means. Then you assign a motive to me, that I'm "trying to drag you into an argument". Please don't do that.

>> that is a very intellectually dishonest passage.

>> You can't just stop the ball rolling wherever you like.

Of course it's okay if you do it. To a quoted article, no less, not even my own words. But when I point out what you did then I'm the bad person. This is why I had no desire to get dragged into this kind of discussion.

For the sake of the argument, I presume you are a woman (personally I don't care if you are male, female, a tree, or whatever else). You think that, just because you are interested in tech, every other woman must also be. That is false. The fact alone that you are a woman in tech means you are part of a minority. It doesn't matter how vocal that minority is, it still is just a minority that does not represent the interests of the majority. Just because you chose a career in tech, while most other females did not, does not inherently mean that there is a problem and that that problem needs fixing. Vegans aren't "sick" just because they chose to eat no meat. Salafists aren't bad people just because of their choice of religion. Cat owners don't hate birds just because they have cats. Most women just have no interest in a technical career. Be that (software) engineers, mechanics or truck drivers. It is a choice they made based on their interests (you can prove that yourself by just asking random women on the street) and it is on you to accept that you are part of a minority and that isn't going to change.

I myself am part of a minority too, being autistic. Unlike you, I have to deal with it no matter what I do and where I go. Would it be nice not to have to live in a world tailored to neuro-typicals and not having to face (extreme) prejudice everywhere I go? Hell yeah. But that is wishful thinking and not reality. Just like gender equality in tech is wishful thinking, but not more. The sooner you accept reality instead of chasing a dream based on wishful thinking, the sooner you can start making a difference for the women that made the same choice you did.

Now have a nice day. I have nothing further to add and won't answer you again.

>> I am cis-gendered female and exhibit a lot of conversational traits typically identified as male-patterned. Does that mean I shouldn't be allowed?

I concede I haven't considered women with atypical behaviours so I'll be honest and say I don't know how to answer your question. My guess is that cis women being a bit confrontational (if I intepret that right) is going to be much less disruptive, or divisive, than trans women doing the same.

>> Personally I love the idea of allowing trans-women into a woman focused community. Your perspective is going to be unique (and likely uniquely insightful.) You also experience the same discrimination as cis-gendered women if you aren't explicitly identifying as transgendered and may have the same needs for support and understanding related to that discrimination.

Thank you for your empowering words, I appreciate them. I hope you're right and that the trans women who join Leap will contribute positively to it.

Personally, I'm not out to my coworkers so yes, I'd benefit from a community like Leap, absolutely. But that can't be just about me (or others like me). If you look at complaints cis women have against trans women, it's all about us thinking only of ourselves and our need to be perceived as women, taking the place of cis women in employment, enjoying resources and structures meant to help cis women etc. The majority of the people who say those things typically turn out to be vicious trolls who don't really care so much about cis women as about hurting trans women. But I have to consider the possibility that in their hatred they have managed to latch on to a nugget of truth: that just by being perceived as any other woman, I end up taking the place of one. And that just shocks me to my core. I transitioned to find myself, not to usurp someone else's place in the world.

So I've decided to be very careful to avoid doing that, if at all possible. And one part of that is staying well away from spaces meant "for women", even if they're explicitly trans-friendly.

And I do think that other trans women should also be just as careful. Expressing your identity can't be done at the cost of others' lives. Well, unless you're Vlad the Impaler.

I can't edit my post. I wanted to add that it's not just the internet postings of vicious, transphobic trolls that have made me think. It's things like the controversy around Fallon Fox; or, the story of a trans woman who received an award for women entrepreneurs thanks to the success of a company she set up while living as a man. Stories that show that sometimes, trans women can really run roughshod over the interests of cis women, in our road to self-actualisation.

>> You think that, just because you are interested in tech, every other woman must also be.

You keep assigning motives and thoughts to me, even though I made it clear that I find it unpleasant and asked you to stop it. I clarified that my original comment was not addressing criticism to you personally and that the use of word "you" did not mean you personally, either. I don't see what I did to justify your confrontational tone, other than disagree with your interpretation of some data.

As to the rest of your comment:

>> Most women just have no interest in a technical career. Be that (software) engineers, mechanics or truck drivers. It is a choice they made based on their interests (you can prove that yourself by just asking random women on the street) and it is on you to accept that you are part of a minority and that isn't going to change.

I'm not as uncommon as you think. I'm originally from Greece, where it is quite common for women to follow careers in technology and the sciences. It is not common in the UK where I live, but that suggests some sort of cultural bias. Additionally, I've worked with several female developers from India over the years and they also don't think it's uncommon, or that it's a job that's not suited for women- quite the contrary; they see it as "office work" which is definitely better for women than manual work.

But let's stick to women in the US and the UK, which I'm guessing you're more familiar with. The point remains that observing that "women are not interested in technology" does not explain why they are not interested in technology. Which means it doesn't explain why women are not pursuing careers in technology, either.

This has nothing to do with subjective or objective analysis. Data alone does not explain anything. It does not have exegetic power, one would say. So the observation that "women are not interested in technology" does not explain anything not because I don't want it to, but because it can't.

Theories do have exegetic power. But observations alone do not constitute a theory.