Riot Games Gaffe Results in Sexism Allegations at Pax West 2018

[Joss]

They're already miserable as it is

The problem is that they won't stop until everybody is miserable too, then they can feel normal.
There, I just resumed leftism

 

[R-T-B]

There used to be a time when your sexuality was private, and nobody else's concern. Now it's out in the public, and a big issue. Go figure. Maybe it was private for a reason?

I had a friend in middleschool during those years, he was... I guess he would be called nonbinary (honestly not my place to say, he put a lot of trust in telling me, I'm using "he" for simplicity.).

He did not make it... I can't remember those years fondly as such.

I mean I get you. My sexuality is not up for discussion at all. But for many, it should be, and it suffocates them.

 

[hat]

The problem is that they won't stop until everybody is miserable too, then they can feel normal.
There, I just resumed leftism

Not too sure about that one... nobody ever chased me with the LGBTQ stick in hand, trying to bash me over the head with it...

 

[R-T-B]

The problem is that they won't stop until everybody is miserable too, then they can feel normal.
There, I just resumed leftism

That's really not the goal at all.

 

[Raven Aurion]

... And how much of that can be attributed to the industry and related fields of study systematically excluding women for decades? Computer science was nearly all-female in the early days, until men realized software was as interesting as hardware (instead of boring "secretarial work" which it had been seen as until then), shut them out of schools and jobs (again: hiring bias is very real, and was far worse 20-30+ years ago, but even today men tend to overwhelmingly hire men, while hiring done by women is statistically far more evenly distributed), and started a decades-long push to give programming a masculine image. Interest isn't something you're born with, and the current demographic distribution among programmers isn't some spontaneous, "natural" happening. Nor is it "planned" in the sense that one person or a single group of people conspired to make it happen, but there has been exerted considerable effort and power by many, many people over these past decades towards promoting computer science and programming as a "male" activity.

Has nothing to do with sexism or bias. It is scientific fact that men tend to be more career oriented than women and women tend to be more family oriented. Furthermore men tend to be more competitive than women. Biology isn't a thing that we can pretend doesn't exist, there are biological factors from our long past hunter-gatherer days that still exist in our genetic code. Women that are career focused can succeed in whatever field they go into, the big point for this being that there are successful women in every field. What is sexism and oppressive is exactly what riot is doing by having a panel like this, and I don't mean due to the "men aren't allowed" factor either. Not allowing men is exclusionary and sexist too sure but it's actually much more so toward women. A panel like this implies that women are too weak to make it on their own and that they need special attention and can't compete with men on a level playing field, which is bullshit. Women can do anything a man can do and they should view shortcuts like this as insulting.

 

[StrayKAT]

That's really not the goal at all.

Maybe not consciously.. But that's kind of the natural progression of identifying as a victim. Misery.

Politics aside, if I defined myself by some setback or something I "lack" all the time, I'd be pretty miserable too. It could happen to anyone.. job, love life, etc.. But politics has a strange allure of keeping you in that angry state. It's always telling to look outside of yourself to fix problems.

 

[R-T-B]

Maybe not consciously.. But that's kind of the natural progression of identifying as a victim. Misery.

That is entirely dependent on how much hope is provided, I'd wager. And for many, they know they are victims without being told because they live it. These types in a society without recognition of their plight have little to no hope.

It is scientific fact that men tend to be more career oriented than women and women tend to be more family oriented.

Citation needed?

 

[RejZoR]

Things are only 'a condition' because we label it as such. But this is a matter of identity. Not a matter of illness at its core. These people are healthy but lack a trait others do have. News flash: there are hundreds of traits both physical and mental that people eother have or lack. Are those all 'defects' and 'disorders'??

Consider 'I have a short attention span' for example: it used to be just that; now we say its ADHD and a 'disorder'. Why? Because it is an inconvenient trait in our society.

Food for thought...

I used to teach kids in school. Seen it firsthand how labels can cripple people and send them further into exclusion rather than it helping them get the right kind of attention.

No, it's called condition because it's sticking out of the norm for something. If 90% of human population is normal straight of one or another gender and other 10% is some weird combination, that makes it an outline, a deviation, an anomaly. We just aren't as harsh as animals that literally just throw away infants that show any of symptoms of weakness, but we instead accept them into society.

I have a mild form of OCD with some things and I sometimes mix up order of numbers (on other hand I can remember hundreds of product model numbers no problem) which is some version of dyslexia which name I forgot right now, but I don't go around and brag about it like it's some sort of achievement or special skill like these people are usually doing and plaster it all over their social profiles and make huge deal out of it. I'm just aware of it and don't really point it out, because why would I? I sometimes jokingly laugh at myself for it, but for the most part I'm keeping it to myself (well, here it is now).

Just because something is called a disorder, it doesn't mean it's necessarily bad. "Disorder" literally means "dis" and "order". Something being out of order, out of the usual norm found within entire human population. Like I've said before, being transgender is a disorder, but that doesn't mean you're a bad person or not capable of doing certain things just because of it. It just means your mental and physical parts don't match up. That's literally all there is to it. I don't know, people should watch Blaire White (she's a Youtuber), she's a tranny with spicy attitude. She talked about these things (as far as gender stuff goes) and it's perfectly logical and understandable. And it makes even more sense since it's coming from someone who actually has such condition/disorder. I think she even called it this way in some video.

 

[StrayKAT]

That is entirely dependent on how much hope is provided, I'd wager.

Outside of active hostility, what's so hopeless? They're not battered spouses or victims in a concentration camp.. where war or law enforcement is necessary. If someone commited a "microaggression" and you lose control, it's own your fault (you/your in general). And someone who mentally dwells on this stuff even when it's not happening (like in online groups.. where you actively seek out and pal along with whole communities of self proclaimed victims) is their own worst enemy.

I've had racist experiences (I'm half Asian, so have some stories to share if I cared to), but this isn't something worth thinking about all the time. There's more to being a person than this. And more to be grateful about.

 

[R-T-B]

Just because something is called a disorder, it doesn't mean it's necessarily bad. "Disorder" literally means "dis" and "order". Something being out of order, out of the usual norm found within entire human population. Like I've said before, being transgender is a disorder, but that doesn't mean you're a bad person or not capable of doing certain things just because of it. It just means your mental and physical parts don't match up. That's literally all there is to it. I don't know, people should watch Blaire White (she's a Youtuber), she's a tranny with spicy attitude. She talked about these things (as far as gender stuff goes) and it's perfectly logical and understandable. And it makes even more sense since it's coming from someone who actually has such condition/disorder. I think she even called it this way in some video.

Psycologically speaking you are correct, not all disorders are mental illness. Still, homosexuality and GID literally no longer appear in the DSM at all, even as disorders. They were struck.

Outside of active hostility, what's so hopeless? They're not battered spouses or victims in a concentration camp.. where war or law enforcement is necessary. If someone commited a "microaggression" and you lose control, it's own your fault (you/your in general). And someone who mentally dwells on this stuff even when it's not happening (like in online groups.. where you actively seek out and pal along with whole communities of self proclaimed victims) is their own worst enemy.

It isn't my place to say, as it would not bother me (you must know this given our PMs, what many would think, and my lack of give a shit). But for many a lack of expression and recognition kills them inside. It is a real pain and to express themselves in a hostile environment is social suicide.

 

[RejZoR]

Well, they can call it magic pixies for all I care, the fact is, their state of being is outside of norm for our species and that's the end of it. And it's literally just that. It doesn't mean they are bad people or they can't do certain things because of it. It's just annoying when someone keeps on jumping at everyone and telling everyone how gay they are and how tranny they are and list all 55474386973678 genders they identify with. NO ONE CARES. Just act like the rest of people and everyone will treat you like you're just another normal person. This is why we call them special snowflakes, because they are obsessed with showing to the world how unique and special they are, like snowflakes where not two are ever the same... In case some of you didn't know why we call them that way...

 

[StrayKAT]

I should add that I shouldn't focus on one side of politics here. Men's Right Activists are just the same. And Incels. I don't know what political spectrum they fall under (and in the case of MRA's, they do have good points about divorce and alimony, but still).

 

[R-T-B]

Well, they can call it magic pixies for all I care, the fact is, their state of being is outside of norm for our species and that's the end of it. And it's literally just that. It doesn't mean they are bad people or they can't do certain things because of it. It's just annoying when someone keeps on jumping at everyone and telling everyone how gay they are and how tranny they are and list all 55474386973678 genders they identify with. NO ONE CARES.

My dead friend felt the same way about all the romance shows on TV and early social media. I'm going to give you the same advice I gave him: Change the channel.

This is why we call them special snowflakes, because they are obsessed with showing to the world how unique and special they are, like snowflakes where not two are ever the same... In case some of you didn't know why we call them that way...

I do. And I find it ironic because I both like getting to know someone, and snowflakes.

 

[RejZoR]

I should add that I shouldn't focus on one side of politics here. Men's Right Activists are just the same. And Incels. I don't know what political spectrum they fall under (and in the case of MRA's, they do have good points about divorce and alimony, but still).

Yeah, MRA guys are special "class". Everyone hates them, especially feminists are obsessing over it like they are taking away their rights where they are just ensuring men have at least some (good luck finding shelters for men, where ones for women are all over the place like mushrooms after a spring rain and how they defend all the custody and alimony cases where it's like super heavily biased towards women). But everyone just throws MRA label around like it's something bad, literally nazis and all that. The incels thing, well I frankly don't understand why everyone is so crazy about. There were always weird people around, they just smacked a new label on them. Yay.

 

[R-T-B]

Yeah, MRA guys are special "class". Everyone hates them, especially feminists are obsessing over it like they are taking away their rights where they are just ensuring men have at least some (good luck finding shelters for men, where ones for women are all over the place like mushrooms after a spring rain and how they defend all the custody and alimony cases where it's like super heavily biased towards women). But everyone just throws MRA label around like it's something bad, literally nazis and all that. The incels thing, well I frankly don't understand why everyone is so crazy about. There were always weird people around, they just smacked a new label on them. Yay.

Actually, I find MRA's to have a legitimate cause. They just need to recognize that that doesn't invalidate the feminist cause either.

 

[StrayKAT]

Yeah, MRA guys are special "class". Everyone hates them, especially feminists are obsessing over it like they are taking away their rights where they are just ensuring men have at least some (good luck finding shelters for men, where ones for women are all over the place like mushrooms after a spring rain and how they defend all the custody and alimony cases where it's like super heavily biased towards women). But everyone just throws MRA label around like it's something bad, literally nazis and all that. The incels thing, well I frankly don't understand why everyone is so crazy about. There were always weird people around, they just smacked a new label on them. Yay.

True.. and I say they should celebrate their weirdness. Heh. But I'm just talking about congregating online and just generally being misanthropists. Not healthy.

But they aren't exactly getting in anyone's faces either.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

For biological gender sure. But for identity? That answer is theirs and theirs alone. Quit trying to take that away.

Identity = psychological = hormonal. If you're born female and have been swimming in testosterone for years (be it presence of extra testosterone or receptor sensitivity to it), you're going to more strongly identify with men than women. The opposite is also true. Sex, in terms of legal purposes, is always physiological, not psychological.

I would remind you for many people gender identity is not a "relatively minor" part of their identity or lives.

Everyone has their demons to deal with. Doesn't mean anyone should air their laundry publicly.


Another important attribute of tribalism that I neglected to mention before is that tribes are suspicious of outsiders. Accepting outsiders can cause the tribe to shift in ways that are unacceptable to established tribe members.

 

[R-T-B]

Everyone has their demons to deal with. Doesn't mean anyone should air their laundry publicly.

I mean, most of the world does. Why not? That honestly strikes me as a hypocritical statement.

I also don't see identity as a "demon" to deal with. It's something to cherish in my eyes.

Identity = psychological = hormonal. If you're born female and have been swimming in testosterone for years (be it presence of extra testosterone or receptor sensitivity to it), you're going to more strongly identify with men than women. The opposite is also true. Sex, in terms of legal purposes, is always physiological, not psychological.

On a medical form sure. That's about as far as I'd take it.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Ehm, Riot Games at PAX basically created a laundry room for a very specific demographic of people. Many others are left to ask "where's my laundry room?"

 

[Valantar]

@Valantar
"Hm. First off, can you show me an actual example of what you're saying? Because otherwise, you're just spouting conspiracy theories. "

Dude, this is literally a known fact that "progressive" companies have diversity quotas. If you look at their departments roster and if you see "Diversity Department" or a "Diversity Officer" you can bet your ass they have that shit. Even if it's not internally, they do it to score brownie points with the Starbucks sipping blue haired crowd because they can then brag about it how diverse and inclusive they are. No one ever held women or minorities or black people out of anything. They simply weren't applying for those positions in large enough numbers as it's proven by all the people who tick these boxes and have been a part of gaming industry for decades before this diversity nonsense blew out on all ends.

Not talking about diversity quotas, I'm talking about "diverse" candidates being picked instead of significantly better qualified alternatives.

Besides that, there's also an intrinsic value to diversity in terms of promoting diverse ideas for a company, making it more secure in terms of producing reliably good products. As such, a certain degree of gender (and under other underrepresented groups) quotas makes sense in the long run. And as long as the difference in qualifications isn't large, it's very difficult to make an argument for this being anything near "reverse discrimination", given the systemic (and very well documented) discrimination other groups have faced and still face today.

What a hot flaming pile of garbage, I love how you try to rewrite history to suit your argument, these early days you speak of stem from a period there was a huge ass war going on called world war 2, most or all able men were fighting in this war with women filling in the voids. So when the war ended naturally men chose to go back into fields that didn't involve getting shot at and over-time shift from predominantly women to men. That was in the past let's get away from that red herring get back to the present. As for the bolded, OF COURSE Interest isn't something people are born with that is the inherent problem with women in STEM , women aren't generating the same number of applicants as men they are going to be subject to the same standards and not going to get a free pass just because they are women. Show actual numbers where are an equal number of women applicants followed a disparity of those selected to show that there is such a conspiracy.

Wait, didn't WWII end in 1945? Because I'm reasonably sure that's quite a while before the 1960s. Men started taking over computer science and programming in the mid-to-late 70s. I sincerely doubt WWII veterans on average took 20-25 years to figure out what field they wanted to work in. In the 40s and 50s, men worked in engineering, not programming - programming was seen as secretarial work, and as such not "good enough" for men. Kind of doubt either secretaries or programmers were shot at often, but that didn't seem to matter. The one attempting to rewrite history here is you, sadly.

As for interest: here in Norway, after a period of very successful campaigns to recruit women into STEM fields, there are actually more female than male students (and graduates) in most STEM fields for the past few years.

Do you realize this is an issue of writing right, such education hasn't been denied to anyone in the relevant timeframe so my oversimplified argument still stands as you were not arguing that such content was actually being produced but not being published that would be discrimination. If you want to go ahead and indeed say that is the case I'm going to ask for proof.

You seem either unable to or simply in denial of how social dynamics work. This isn't about outright denying anyone anything outright (at least not for the last 30-40-ish years - though this is mainly due to strong women standing up for themselves and letting people know that this is unacceptable), but rather the collection of factors, behaviours, expectations and judgements that have forced people out of these fields. As an example: women studying CS have been ostracised, laughed at, and forced out of the field, essentially left without job prospects because everyone said "men are better" and dismissed or ignored their actual abilities. Being a woman studying anything tech-related in the 80s was ... well, not fun. And their classmates are now the professors and teachers inducting others into this field. Is it strange that these dynamics linger?

The bold shows you are beyond reason. Say I want to be an astronaut there are only but 100 spots open for candidacy for the next mission. 100 applicants are indisputably more qualified than I am placing at 101 how is it fair to give me a spot because I happen to be at whatever disadvantage. How is it fair for one those 100 qualified to lose their spot?

The problem here is how you define "indisputably more qualified", and how this definition was arrived at. Given that pretty much every field in tech has been shaped almost exclusively by men over the past 50+ years, the criteria for success in the field have also been defined to fit traditional male culture and its trappings. With this in mind, it's reasonable to look at these criteria critically and question what logic lies behind them. Chances are they aren't "neutral" or unbiased, no matter how much they're framed as such. An example, "logical thinking" is typically touted as this neutral, ideal quality - yet it's strongly linked to masculinity, not only leading men to be seen as inherently more logical, but women presenting identical arguments to men are systematically judged as more emotional and less logical. In other words, there's a difference between presentation of an ideal and reality.

Again with this white male thing have you actually paid attention to esports? It's dominated by Asians, over there the esports scene is many times bigger than NA and Europe combined and in NA there a large number of Chinese teams. The face of esports is an Asian male but for some strange reason you keep saying white.

Oh, is eSports representative for people working in tech? I don't think so, really. Have anything to back that up? And yes, the tech industry in Asia has grown huge over the past 15-20 years, especially in engineering and manufacturing. As such, we could say that there are now two dominant groups globally rather than one. The thing is, this is too localized to be of any real significance - worker mobility simply isn't significant enough. I frankly don't know enough about the Asian tech industry to talk about diversity there, although I don't believe it's any better than Europe or the US, and as such working for diversity in their education and recruiting should obviously also be a focus for them. But I prefer to talk of what I have knowledge of, and Asia isn't that.

Fixed. Enuff said.



Game development is not as easy as you portray here. its easy to argue for skin color or gender bias, but when push comes to shove, it boils down to Time and Investor input (aka Money). It doesnt occur to people that adding "other" character skins and/or gender adds 10-20% to development costs which is why FPS games were so dominant prior to 2006-ish. So please keep on arguing for character development disparity, its a real game changer. Ignorance is bliss.

Wait, what? So if you're designing 20 characters, it's more work to make 10 of those male and 10 female than designing all 20 as men? Yes? No? Sorry, but that argument doesn't add up whatsoever.

It's not a "belief," it's XX and XY chromosome pairs which are observed in the entire mammal kingdom. They, in part, control estrogen and testosterone production which lead to many psychological and physiological differences between the two. Sex is binary and always will be but there are always exceptions (tumor on ovary for example can prevent estrogen production, tumor on teste can prevent testosterone production, damaged organ in either case due to whatever reason can result in fewer hormones, etc.). These exceptions are all medical in nature--they don't change sex but can change behavior/appearance over time (e.g. a male with low testosterone in their teens isn't going to act/look very masculine probably for the rest of his life).

The reason why society puts women and men in separate boxes is so that society could survive. It prevents males from killing each over females (thanks to Samuel Colt, humans are really good at killing), it prevents women and children from being abandoned (creates a lot of problems for society) after she has gotten pregnant, it allows society to assign strict punishments for abusing the weaker sex, and it establishes behavioral patterns through generations that become mores (e.g. a male spending excessive time with a non-family female will draw suspicion and ire). In other words, it's tribalism for survival and it is observed in virtually all social mammals. A more "free society" ends up being more dangerous for females because the nature of humanity is rigged against them.

Paraphrasing Nicholas Wade, wanting a non-gendered society is "a matter of principle, not of science."

There's nothing inherently "scientific" in a gendered society, and your use of that word in that manner in itself speaks of you sitting on some noticeable gendered bias.

As for chromosomes: XX and XY are the most common combinations, but there's significant variability, and physical sex expression is not entirely determined by chromosomes. XY-chromosome males have been found to have female reproductive organs far beyond puberty - though not active or "working" ones. Then you have things like Klinefelter syndrome, which affects between 1 in 500 and 1 in 1000 male children born, who then have three gender chromosomes: XXY. This isn't the only variation like this. And, as you can see, it's quite common. If the US has 300 million inhabitants and ~49% of those are designated male, that means ~147 000 people in the US has this condition. That's quite significant.

Then there's the social aspect of this. Babies with very large clitorises have historically often been assigned male sex at birth, regardless of chromosomes or other factors. Surgery is, as mentioned before, still not uncommon to "determine" the sex of children with "in-between"-looking genitalia.

As for saying "if men and women were treated the same, men would kill each other over women", that ... doesn't add up. That's without mentioning that it's an incredibly denigrating thing to say about men. Are we really that irrational and unable to control our "urges"? Not only are you creating a link between social behaviour and biology that you're not backing up whatsoever (which makes sense, as there is no reliable data to back that up), but you're essentially preaching biological determinism. Humans proved thousands of years ago that we're fully capable of social behaviour that trumps any "biological imperative". Heck, our bodies and brains are significantly shaped by social experience and historical social practices, and current research in epigenetics is starting to show that genetics is far more complex and less straightforward than previously thought, with our social and physical environments having a significant impact on gene expression.

I have no problem agreeing that a majority of male-female relationships has historically been seen as a practical necessity to maintain societal structure in an easy way, but the thing is, our current world doesn't require this any more. Science, which you seem to be fond of, has removed any such requirement quite a while ago. Not to mention that it'd have been entirely possible to organize a society more equally than most Western ones even hundreds of years ago - the power dynamics would have needed to be different, as would the economics, but just because history played out one way doesn't mean that's the only possible option.

Those are birth defects.


Genetic testing can give a definitive physiological answer. Hormonal testing can give a definitive psychological answer.


Why are they outcasts? Because natural selection dictates they aren't good reproductive mates. You're asking humans to ignore their nature for the sake of someone else's feelings. The recidivism rate of rapists prove that principle does not trump science.

"Birth defects" is ... well, a fluid definition. Attempting to define "correct" human gene expression is a very, very, very tricky thing to do, as .. well, it's largely impossible.

As for the second paragraph: no. Neither of those are true. The first has significant variability, while the second sentence is pure nonsense.

And are you seriously saying people are genetically predisposed to rape? Seriously? Wow. Did you study criminality in the 1800s or something? 'Cause that kind of biologically determinist codswallop has long since been disproven. Nobody is "born to be a criminal". Besides, rape largely has near nothing to do with sex, but rather is in most cases an exertion and claim of power by the rapist. This might explain the recidivism rate somewhat, as feeling empowered tends to be addictive (especially if you feel powerless most of the time), but can't either be pegged as the sole reason for this. Human behaviour is incredibly complex. You're portraying it in a grossly oversimplified way, with reasoning that's long since been disproven.

Everybody's included. Except the devil white males...

Oh boo hoo. Poor white men, losing a tiny amount of the privilege they've had for the past several centuries. Sorry, but I don't feel sorry for us. I guess we'll have to retreat to the 99.9% of society where we're still given preferential treatment.

When X and Y is not X or Y, that falls apart fast, and it does happen.

No, it's not. No authority on the matter still lists GID as a "mental disorder." Get your head out of the frickin 70s.

Dude, don't pretend we don't have it fine. Honestly, it's shameful.

For biological gender sure. But for identity? That answer is theirs and theirs alone. Quit trying to take that away.

Google/wikipedia "Indeterminate Gender."

Honestly, I have been in that culture myself and while it has its faults, I see wayway more discrimination here in the attitudes presented than I ever wanted to see. It's outright painful to me to see.

What? Not my experience at all.

I would remind you for many people gender identity is not a "relatively minor" part of their identity or lives.

Thank you. About time someone here spoke some sense.

There used to be a time when your sexuality was private, and nobody else's concern. Now it's out in the public, and a big issue. Go figure. Maybe it was private for a reason? Because none of these people that feel discriminated against are feeling anything that generations before didn't feel... they are just more "vocal" about it, and given the prevelence of cell phones aand internet access, where people think they have privacy, this is of no surprise.

While I don't agree with some other parts of what you said, and agree with others, I have to point this out: this is BS. At what point in history has "private sexuality" protected non-straight people? What happened if you were somehow found out to be gay in these times? Persecution of LGBTQI people is in no way a new thing.

Not too sure about that one... nobody ever chased me with the LGBTQ stick in hand, trying to bash me over the head with it...

Maybe not consciously.. But that's kind of the natural progression of identifying as a victim. Misery.

Politics aside, if I defined myself by some setback or something I "lack" all the time, I'd be pretty miserable too. It could happen to anyone.. job, love life, etc.. But politics has a strange allure of keeping you in that angry state. It's always telling to look outside of yourself to fix problems.

Luckily, there's a simple cure for this 'misery' you speak of: this wonder-drug called empathy. If you treat people with respect, listen to their needs, explain your own needs and actions and hold yourself open to the experiences of others and willing to compromise to avoid harming others, chances are both you and other people will end up happy. Sure, it's challenging, but it works.

Has nothing to do with sexism or bias. It is scientific fact that men tend to be more career oriented than women and women tend to be more family oriented. Furthermore men tend to be more competitive than women. Biology isn't a thing that we can pretend doesn't exist, there are biological factors from our long past hunter-gatherer days that still exist in our genetic code.

As @R-T-B said, Citation very much needed. First off: please define "scientific fact". Which branch of the sciences did it come from? Did it come from a science that analyses society and social conventions? One that attempts to explain behaviour? One that documents and presents current behaviour? Also, please remember that correlation does not imply causality. Do you have any data at all that shows a causal link between competitive behaviour and genetics? Also, how exactly is "career focus" (seemingly regardless of field?) somehow analogous to hunting? Yeah, that's a major leap, which you're somehow expecting genetics to just ... take in stride, with no adjustments needed, apparently. Also, do you have any data showing that social factors and upbringing isn't significant with regard to this? Because this (while I'm sadly too lazy to google this; it shouldn't be too hard though) is something that there is significant scientific data to back up.

their state of being is outside of norm for our species and that's the end of it. And it's literally just that. It doesn't mean they are bad people or they can't do certain things because of it. It's just annoying when someone keeps on jumping at everyone and telling everyone how gay they are and how tranny they are and list all 55474386973678 genders they identify with. NO ONE CARES. Just act like the rest of people and everyone will treat you like you're just another normal person. This is why we call them special snowflakes, because they are obsessed with showing to the world how unique and special they are, like snowflakes where not two are ever the same... In case some of you didn't know why we call them that way...

There's no such thing as a "norm for our species". Norms are societal. Homo sapiens has quite a few societies, all of which have differing norms.

As for the rest of your post: if nobody cared, why are they systematically discriminated against? Why are trans people far more likely to be murdered than almost any other demographic group in the vast majority of countries? Why have homosexuals been beaten, killed, castrated, kidnapped, forced into psychological abuse camps ("conversion therapy")? Yeah, people care. Just in very, very bad ways. All they're asking is really for this to stop. Is that too high an ask for you? You say they're obsessed with showing the world how unique they are. They say they're trying to make people stop killing them. I for one tend to believe the latter.

Yeah, MRA guys are special "class". Everyone hates them, especially feminists are obsessing over it like they are taking away their rights where they are just ensuring men have at least some (good luck finding shelters for men, where ones for women are all over the place like mushrooms after a spring rain and how they defend all the custody and alimony cases where it's like super heavily biased towards women). But everyone just throws MRA label around like it's something bad, literally nazis and all that. The incels thing, well I frankly don't understand why everyone is so crazy about. There were always weird people around, they just smacked a new label on them. Yay.

Actually, I find MRA's to have a legitimate cause. They just need to recognize that that doesn't invalidate the feminist cause either.

To the degree that MRAs can be said to have any legitimate cause (which is a tiny degree) it's already been spearheaded by feminists. That's the funny thing, with them seeing feminists as harming them, while feminists have been fighting for men's ability to be fathers to their children, most feminists have decades ago started fighting for equality in terms of alimony and child support, and generally for the ability of men to openly be emotional, care for their loved ones, and other extremely human behaviours that are somehow labeled as "below" men. Feminism is about leveling the playing field in all regards, including giving men increased access to traditionally female-coded jobs, behaviours, roles and identities. Of course there are a few extremists still that disagree with this, but they are extremely few and far between - and certainly not ideologically significant in feminism for the past 40+ years.

Identity = psychological = hormonal. If you're born female and have been swimming in testosterone for years (be it presence of extra testosterone or receptor sensitivity to it), you're going to more strongly identify with men than women. The opposite is also true. Sex, in terms of legal purposes, is always physiological, not psychological.

Everyone has their demons to deal with. Doesn't mean anyone should air their laundry publicly.

Another important attribute of tribalism that I neglected to mention before is that tribes are suspicious of outsiders. Accepting outsiders can cause the tribe to shift in ways that are unacceptable to established tribe members.

Wow, you have an impressively oversimplified view of how society, social behaviour and human behaviour works. Do you actually believe that our personalities are entirely contingent on hormones? The scientific backing for a claim like that is very, very flimsy. And you're entirely right that sex is biological. It's also mostly split into two groups, but there's significant biological variability. Gender on the other hand is a social construct. Gender norms are definitely affected by our biological bodies, especially as social gender norms have been constructed over the decades and centuries. But saying that gender is equal to sex, or straightforwardly genetically determined, is a gross oversimplification at best.

As for tribes being suspicious of outsiders, that's .. again, not always true. A lot of historical and current tribes are very welcoming to outsiders. That "tribalism" has become synonymous with closed-off societies that shun outsiders is in a large part due to the incredibly racist views of the early explorers and colonists, and has very, very little to do with any sort of actual social structure or societal norm. Also, is it strange that most "tribes" in those days grew to be hostile to Western "explorers" who came and stole their land and resources, killed them, enslaved them, or worse? Yeah, that actually makes sense. But of course, they were "uncivilized" "barbarians" and so on and so forth ...

I guess I ended up with two walls of text today. Oh well. That's enough time spent on this forum for one day.

 

[Joss]

Actually, I find MRA's to have a legitimate cause. They just need to recognize that that doesn't invalidate the feminist cause either.

The problem with feminists is that they're not pro-women but against-men.
And that's the problem with all these PC brigades and platoons, they're always against, their base is hate; defending lgbt rights is a weapon for attacking Caucasian heterosexual males.

 

[RejZoR]

@Valantar
"Oh boo hoo. Poor white men, losing a tiny amount of the privilege they've had for the past several centuries. "

I love it when people just smear this bogeyman privilege across entire race because some plantation owners from 300 years ago were rich and had slaves. 90% of people have nothing to do with any of that and we don't have any special privileges because we're white. I mean, last time I walked into Aston Martin dealership and I said I want to buy new DB11 with my white privilege and they just laughed...

 

[StrayKAT]

Luckily, there's a simple cure for this 'misery' you speak of: this wonder-drug called empathy. If you treat people with respect, listen to their needs, explain your own needs and actions and hold yourself open to the experiences of others and willing to compromise to avoid harming others, chances are both you and other people will end up happy. Sure, it's challenging, but it works.

I'm empathetic to an extent. I suggest to people that they live with more gratitude and less worry in their lives. They won't live very well (or long) without it. It's not up to me to be so active or social about this. Whether I'm open to their experience is irrelevant. They have serious issues if my pointless presence is a catalyst for their own happiness. I barely talk to anyone.

 

[Totally]

Wait, didn't WWII end in 1945? Because I'm reasonably sure that's quite a while before the 1960s. Men started taking over computer science and programming in the mid-to-late 70s. I sincerely doubt WWII veterans on average took 20-25 years to figure out what field they wanted to work in. In the 40s and 50s, men worked in engineering, not programming - programming was seen as secretarial work, and as such not "good enough" for men. Kind of doubt either secretaries or programmers were shot at often, but that didn't seem to matter. The one attempting to rewrite history here is you, sadly.

Yes, early computers existed then and Alan Turing, not associated an as engineer died nine years later after WWII where he made significant contribution to the field. I'm sorry if it's news to you that computer science started much earlier than the 1960s with roots as far back as the 1930s. The reason why programming was seen as secretarial work then was because it actually was, they weren't doing any actual coding someone else presumably a computer scientist would develop the code, then this code would be transferred to punch cards that would be used to program the computers not unlike scantrons. You don't need any knowledge of computing to perform such a task it was menial and hence why it was a secretarial duty.

You seem either unable to or simply in denial of how social dynamics work. This isn't about outright denying anyone anything outright (at least not for the last 30-40-ish years - though this is mainly due to strong women standing up for themselves and letting people know that this is unacceptable), but rather the collection of factors, behaviours, expectations and judgements that have forced people out of these fields. As an example: women studying CS have been ostracised, laughed at, and forced out of the field, essentially left without job prospects because everyone said "men are better" and dismissed or ignored their actual abilities. Being a woman studying anything tech-related in the 80s was ... well, not fun. And their classmates are now the professors and teachers inducting others into this field. Is it strange that these dynamics linger?

Right back at you. That is textbook discrimination, it does happen, your point?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Are we really that irrational and unable to control our "urges"?

Yup.

More than 73 percent (73.1) of the persons arrested in the nation during 2015 were males. They accounted for 79.7 percent of persons arrested for violent crime and 61.7 percent of persons arrested for property crime. (See Table 42.)

Also, men are more likely to be violent when surrounded by women (likely due to not fearing retribution).

Not only are you creating a link between social behaviour and biology that you're not backing up whatsoever (which makes sense, as there is no reliable data to back that up), but you're essentially preaching biological determinism. Humans proved thousands of years ago that we're fully capable of social behaviour that trumps any "biological imperative". Heck, our bodies and brains are significantly shaped by social experience and historical social practices, and current research in epigenetics is starting to show that genetics is far more complex and less straightforward than previously thought, with our social and physical environments having a significant impact on gene expression.

If you read the NYTimes article, it takes 1000s of years for social changes to be encoded in DNA at best.

And are you seriously saying people are genetically predisposed to rape?

No. Sex offenders are 30+ times more likely to repeat it than someone that hasn't. I basically scratched the surface of a topic that needs chapters written that I'm not going to go into here.

A lot of historical and current tribes are very welcoming to outsiders.

Only out of necessity. For example, a tribe that had several men but one or two elderly women would readily accept a female outcast in the name of survival. Survival isn't very paramount these days numbering around 7 billion people so tribes are more likely to reject outcasts than accept them.

Also, is it strange that most "tribes" in those days grew to be hostile to Western "explorers" who came and stole their land and resources, killed them, enslaved them, or worse?

You're thinking too literal. Example of modern tribes relevant to TPU: the tribe of AMD and the tribe of NVIDIA.