The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science

In my experience, most people who act like that lack the intelligence to make valid points in an argument or there are no good arguments that support their point of view.

I think a lot of this has to do with parenting. When crying always gets you everything, you don't learn to work hard or have a debate to get what you want. There's a whole generation of full-grown babies.

Quite a dangerous falsehood to parrot. I am strongly critical of many of the more conservative values espoused by the practitioners of major religions in the US; their view on these matters do NOT agree with my own.

I will, however, fight for their right to express these views and practice their religion in my country (up until the point it infringes on another's rights).

> But sexism isn’t the result of knowing facts; it’s the result of what people choose to do with them.

We know that men are taller than women. I can see you agreeing, but actually this statement is ambiguous, because these two are not the same thing:

  A man is taller than a women

  On average, men are taller than women

Sexism is taking a random male and a random female, and claiming that despite all the facts presented to you, the male is taller than the female. It doesn't matter that in a specific case a female is taller than a male.

The same can be applied to any group and their respective stereotype. The *ism happens when we fail to assess an individual on the data given to us, preferring to fall back on mentally-lazy stereotypes/generalisations even when what we can see says something different.

   A single study, published in 2015, did claim that male
  and female brains existed along a “mosaic” and that it
  isn’t possible to differentiate them by sex, but this has
  been refuted by four – yes, four – academic studies since.

  This includes a study that analyzed the exact same brain
  data from the original study and found that the sex of a
  given brain could be correctly identified with 69-per-cent 
  to 77-per-cent accuracy.

Well I'd argue that isn't great accuracy as 50% is what you'd expect from chance (though I haven't read those references). In fact, I might expect a similar accuracy from a machine-learning technique to predict sex based on your height.

I haven't touched on the causes of population differences. With height, I don't think anyone thinks it's anything other than genetic (by way of testosterone levels). For interests and skills, the proportion that is caused by testosterone versus culture/environment is still unclear.

If we believe there is still a cultural effect, then I think positive discrimination is justified to counter this.

As an anecdote, we were wondering why our four-year old son suddenly lost interest in 'Frozen'. He told us this week that a girl had told him at nursery that 'Frozen' wasn't for boys. Cultural stereotype reinforcement is alive and well, and starts early!

Because it doesn't align with their worldview, and the wrong kind of thought must be quashed.

> gender studies

If I've learned anything, a "degree" in gender studies means one thing. It means that you are not a "Cis-gendered hetereosexual White Male".

Gender studies is a code-word for Women Studies. It's a bone to throw, to get "VP of Diversity and Hugbox" - and those groups are the ones to twist, lie, and deform anything you said because you're a threat. As long as you toe the line, you're usually relatively safe. If you speak out about the elephant, you are not to be discussed or engaged. You're to be blackballed, fired, and worse if they could.

And what those programs teach - they teach professional victimhood, professional weakness, and "Multiculturalism" in the sense of that you should hate Western Heteresexual White culture.