Okay, let's look at his presentation. Helpfully he didn't number the pages.
"% of women in different fields" He argues that because there are more women than men in some fields, there is no discrimination and it's just a natural balance for each subject. The obvious flaw in this argument is that it assumes that discrimination is equal in app professions and subjects. Even within STEM it's uneven.
"% of women in theory" Classic "gender equality paradox" argument, which simply ignores the different social structures in each country and either discards or focuses on the outliers as suits it.
"Sexism in citations" Decides to ignore this paper because of a single sentence in the abstract. Handy because it provide some compelling evidence that his hypothesis is wrong.
"Sexism in conferences" Presents a graph showing that there is an issue, then dismisses it by pointing out that the issues start much earlier than the conference... Which seems to be admitting that there is a problem. Then deflects by complaining about women only conferences, right below the graph showing the need for them.
"Gender asymmetry in hiring" Women are hired with fewer citations... And as he pointed out in the previous slide, women get fewer citations so that's unsurprising. Also fails to consider different disciplines here, he just lumps all difference sciences together. Note that the graph also shows pretty clearly the problem women face as they reach their mid-20s and people start to assume they will drop out to have families.
"Gender asymmetry in hiring: by country" Unfortunately we don't know what he was saying with this slide up. Since it otherwise undermines his core point I imagine it was something about how the gap is there in every country regardless of level of equality or something, a pretty lame argument.
"Discrimination against men" Here we get to the classic anti-feminist nonsense. Men are obliged to fight in wars, well feminists tried to stop that. Then the widely debunked story about Oxford extending exam times for women. It just goes on and on like that.
I haven't got time to go through the rest, but I can see he is using number of citations as a metric which is obviously flawed. Everyone wants to cite well known people, and people working in more niche areas are clearly not going to get as many citations.
She was asked for a quote, not a dissertation. There are decades of papers and studies in this area if you want to read up about it.
This is James Damore all over again. The studies cited don't say what he thinks they say. The classic example is this one, which a naive reader might conclude proves that there is a difference between men and women that could account for the imbalance in STEM... Except that the differences are far too small to draw that conclusion.
This is called the "incoherence problem", where otherwise smart people bring together a bunch of overlapping data and reach unwarranted conclusions by building it into a nonsensical framework.
It is not intended to be. It's supposed to act as a wedge to open the door, in the hope that the issue with then start to self correct. It's like how the first women and people of colour in certain industries found it very hard but ultimately helped pave the way for others to follow them, only they are hoping that this speeds up the process since clearly it's 2018 and boards are still mostly male.
"Why aren't women being elected to boards already? If, as diversity advocates assert, having diverse boards is so productive, why haven't greedy shareholders already figured this out and hired women? Boards and shareholders are frequently depicted as being extremely motivated to increase profit, this seems like an easy way to do it."
It's a bit more complicated than that, is the short answer. It takes time to develop talent within the company to populate the board, and it takes a little more effort to widen the pool of external candidates to include more women to choose from. Ultimately shareholders are not rational actors anyway, they don't sit down and search out the best board members systematically, they look at who they know by reputation and go there first. That's one reason why board level pay is so silly.
Currently my post is scored 20% flamebait and 20% overrated. For the sake of argument let's discount the overrated and assume that moderation is genuine.
There are people out there for whom merely disagreeing with them on this topic, merely contradicting their narrative is incitement. It angers them so much that they can't allow it to be discussed or visible at +2. This is a problem for Slashdot because it prevents effective debate by hiding half of the argument and discouraging people from expressing those views lest it destroy their karma.
It varies from country to country, some have a registration process which can range from as little as just applying to satisfying some criteria. Getting the cert automatically triggers various changes to things like your government ID, healthcare, banking and so on so it's not something you do lightly because if you are not serious it can really screw up your life.
In other places it is down to courts to decide on the precise definition of "identify as X". Depending on the legal system it could result in precedent or it could result in each case being judged on its merits.
Legal systems do this stuff all the time, e.g. determining if someone is of "sound mind".
Misrepresenting things just makes it harder to resolve these issues. You are making it worse for everyone.
Transgender athletes are an issue that has largely been resolved, similar to issues over intersex athletes that have existing since the very first women competing at that level. What it boils down to is examining each individual, in particular things like their testosterone levels. Athletes already have limits for various hormones to prevent doping and other forms of cheating. In this case it's not clear why the Australian bodies didn't follow this established practice.
As for the other trans woman, yes not all trans people look as they would prefer to or as society deems normal for their gender. There is actually an interesting parallel with men here, particularly those calling themselves "incells" who are convinced that they can never look "right" and thus are unloveable.
Your link to the argument on Big Brother, that well respected venue for considered, rational debate, is an interesting one. Note that it is nothing like you describe it, the issue is that a man said he would not consider dating a woman if he knew she was trans. That statement implies that if he didn't know he would date her, which is bad enough. Now don't get me wrong, there are a very few legitimate reasons for not wanting to date trans women, mostly around a non-negotiable desire for biologically related children, but that's not the issue here.
Of course, all these issues are ones that mainstream feminism is concerned with and works to resolve through understanding and acceptance.
Ironically, I am certain to be called a bigot and modded down as a troll for even making these statements. That's the level of hatred, bigotry, censorship and oppression that trans people face.
Does it really work like that in California? Most places it's not just enough to declare you are female, you have to actually live as a female. Shave your beard, wear women's clothing, change your name etc.
And why only women? Why not one black, one Asian, one Hispanic, all required by law?
Because the goal is not to force equal numbers, it's to overcome a specific obstacle. By requiring one woman on every board the hope is that it gets easier for the second woman or the non-old-white-guy.
Unfortunately it's literally impossible to have a debate about this on Slashdot, but I'm well beyond caring about the karma at this point.
Honestly not sure if you are right or not... For such a long summary it's remarkably free of actual information and details of what this thing is or how it works.
I addressed the Opal issue in another post, but what it boils down to is that someone made a complaint (before the CoC was even in place!) and it eventually resulted in a CoC being adopted. However note that the CoC they did adopt does not apply to things said outside of official project spaces, so would not apply to the tweets she was complaining about anyway, and she accepted that publicly in a Medium blog post: https://medium.com/@coralinead...
Note that the guy in question was not banned or removed or sanctioned in any way, all that happened is a CoC stating explicitly that those kinds of transphobic statements should not be made in official project spaces was adopted.
So if we are talking about making a mountain out of a mole hill... I think the people meta-complaining about it are blowing it out of all proportion.
Your second link is 11,000 words, estimated reading time 1 hour. So TL:DR I'm afraid but generally speaking false rape allegations are an issue we should all be concerned about, but nothing to do with a Code of Conduct.
The only controversy I could find was this call for a more comprehensive CoC to be adopted, particularly because the one selected doesn't have any enforcement mechanism: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/iss...
Elia Schito: Not banned. As a result of a complaint (that was accepted by the maintainer) a Code of Conduct was adopted, although note that it doesn't cover activity outside of official project spaces so the tweets in question would not be an issue with it anyway.
So still no examples of people being forced out due to CoC violations, or any retroactive application of the terms, or application to things said outside of official project spaces.
Here we have one guy getting his digs in before the expected wave of complaints... That never came. He starts badly by quoting "I did not make a statement asking for him to be removed from the board", rather undermining his argument. Plus they are complaining that the CoC is inadequate, not celebrating the creation of a weapon they plan to use.
He throws in a bit of dead naming and general complaints, assuming that these will turn into CoC complaints... But they haven't. No-one bothered to reply, for obvious reasons.
Come on AC, you have had years and years to collect some examples of people being unfairly sanctioned for CoC violations. If this is the best you can do then I must conclude that there are no examples and these fears are unfounded.
She is arguing that the CoC is ineffective and should be improved by adding more details of how to contact the board privately and securely, and that the current set-up where the board has access to an archive of complaints (which could potentially be about board members) is inadequate.
So this doesn't appear to be anything like the claims being made about the CoC being used to get people removed/banned over minor, past statements. Note that she doesn't say Theo should be removed, she says that the Technical Advisory Board is the wrong organization to be dealing with these complaints.
So far there is no evidence that these fears are true, despite literally years of asking for examples and ample time for problems to develop.
Debian or FreeBSD maybe, they adopted Codes of Conduct that were considered likely to have this affect some years ago, so presumably it's manifested itself by now.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, let's look at his presentation. Helpfully he didn't number the pages.
"% of women in different fields"
He argues that because there are more women than men in some fields, there is no discrimination and it's just a natural balance for each subject. The obvious flaw in this argument is that it assumes that discrimination is equal in app professions and subjects. Even within STEM it's uneven.
"% of women in theory"
Classic "gender equality paradox" argument, which simply ignores the different social structures in each country and either discards or focuses on the outliers as suits it.
"Sexism in citations"
Decides to ignore this paper because of a single sentence in the abstract. Handy because it provide some compelling evidence that his hypothesis is wrong.
"Sexism in conferences"
Presents a graph showing that there is an issue, then dismisses it by pointing out that the issues start much earlier than the conference... Which seems to be admitting that there is a problem. Then deflects by complaining about women only conferences, right below the graph showing the need for them.
"Gender asymmetry in hiring"
Women are hired with fewer citations... And as he pointed out in the previous slide, women get fewer citations so that's unsurprising. Also fails to consider different disciplines here, he just lumps all difference sciences together. Note that the graph also shows pretty clearly the problem women face as they reach their mid-20s and people start to assume they will drop out to have families.
"Gender asymmetry in hiring: by country"
Unfortunately we don't know what he was saying with this slide up. Since it otherwise undermines his core point I imagine it was something about how the gap is there in every country regardless of level of equality or something, a pretty lame argument.
"Discrimination against men"
Here we get to the classic anti-feminist nonsense. Men are obliged to fight in wars, well feminists tried to stop that. Then the widely debunked story about Oxford extending exam times for women. It just goes on and on like that.
I haven't got time to go through the rest, but I can see he is using number of citations as a metric which is obviously flawed. Everyone wants to cite well known people, and people working in more niche areas are clearly not going to get as many citations.
She was asked for a quote, not a dissertation. There are decades of papers and studies in this area if you want to read up about it.
This is James Damore all over again. The studies cited don't say what he thinks they say. The classic example is this one, which a naive reader might conclude proves that there is a difference between men and women that could account for the imbalance in STEM... Except that the differences are far too small to draw that conclusion.
This is called the "incoherence problem", where otherwise smart people bring together a bunch of overlapping data and reach unwarranted conclusions by building it into a nonsensical framework.
For the record I don't think your post should be modded troll either. It's got so bad that these people want to completely shut down the debate.
"This is not a scalable strategy."
It is not intended to be. It's supposed to act as a wedge to open the door, in the hope that the issue with then start to self correct. It's like how the first women and people of colour in certain industries found it very hard but ultimately helped pave the way for others to follow them, only they are hoping that this speeds up the process since clearly it's 2018 and boards are still mostly male.
"Why aren't women being elected to boards already? If, as diversity advocates assert, having diverse boards is so productive, why haven't greedy shareholders already figured this out and hired women? Boards and shareholders are frequently depicted as being extremely motivated to increase profit, this seems like an easy way to do it."
It's a bit more complicated than that, is the short answer. It takes time to develop talent within the company to populate the board, and it takes a little more effort to widen the pool of external candidates to include more women to choose from. Ultimately shareholders are not rational actors anyway, they don't sit down and search out the best board members systematically, they look at who they know by reputation and go there first. That's one reason why board level pay is so silly.
Currently my post is scored 20% flamebait and 20% overrated. For the sake of argument let's discount the overrated and assume that moderation is genuine.
There are people out there for whom merely disagreeing with them on this topic, merely contradicting their narrative is incitement. It angers them so much that they can't allow it to be discussed or visible at +2. This is a problem for Slashdot because it prevents effective debate by hiding half of the argument and discouraging people from expressing those views lest it destroy their karma.
"Most importantly this is a LAW, it is forever"
That's not how laws work.
It varies from country to country, some have a registration process which can range from as little as just applying to satisfying some criteria. Getting the cert automatically triggers various changes to things like your government ID, healthcare, banking and so on so it's not something you do lightly because if you are not serious it can really screw up your life.
In other places it is down to courts to decide on the precise definition of "identify as X". Depending on the legal system it could result in precedent or it could result in each case being judged on its merits.
Legal systems do this stuff all the time, e.g. determining if someone is of "sound mind".
Misrepresenting things just makes it harder to resolve these issues. You are making it worse for everyone.
Transgender athletes are an issue that has largely been resolved, similar to issues over intersex athletes that have existing since the very first women competing at that level. What it boils down to is examining each individual, in particular things like their testosterone levels. Athletes already have limits for various hormones to prevent doping and other forms of cheating. In this case it's not clear why the Australian bodies didn't follow this established practice.
As for the other trans woman, yes not all trans people look as they would prefer to or as society deems normal for their gender. There is actually an interesting parallel with men here, particularly those calling themselves "incells" who are convinced that they can never look "right" and thus are unloveable.
Your link to the argument on Big Brother, that well respected venue for considered, rational debate, is an interesting one. Note that it is nothing like you describe it, the issue is that a man said he would not consider dating a woman if he knew she was trans. That statement implies that if he didn't know he would date her, which is bad enough. Now don't get me wrong, there are a very few legitimate reasons for not wanting to date trans women, mostly around a non-negotiable desire for biologically related children, but that's not the issue here.
Of course, all these issues are ones that mainstream feminism is concerned with and works to resolve through understanding and acceptance.
Ironically, I am certain to be called a bigot and modded down as a troll for even making these statements. That's the level of hatred, bigotry, censorship and oppression that trans people face.
Does it really work like that in California? Most places it's not just enough to declare you are female, you have to actually live as a female. Shave your beard, wear women's clothing, change your name etc.
Yet.
And why only women? Why not one black, one Asian, one Hispanic, all required by law?
Because the goal is not to force equal numbers, it's to overcome a specific obstacle. By requiring one woman on every board the hope is that it gets easier for the second woman or the non-old-white-guy.
Unfortunately it's literally impossible to have a debate about this on Slashdot, but I'm well beyond caring about the karma at this point.
If you see someone left their door unlocked that's not an invitation to enter their house.
Name one registrar that isn't.
As Storm Front found out, the aren't any.
Were you a free user or paying customer?
TFA has zero information, the website (thel.io) has no details. What is this thing?
x86 and CoreBoot/LibreBoot? RISC-V?
Honestly not sure if you are right or not... For such a long summary it's remarkably free of actual information and details of what this thing is or how it works.
Thanks, that's important to note.
I addressed the Opal issue in another post, but what it boils down to is that someone made a complaint (before the CoC was even in place!) and it eventually resulted in a CoC being adopted. However note that the CoC they did adopt does not apply to things said outside of official project spaces, so would not apply to the tweets she was complaining about anyway, and she accepted that publicly in a Medium blog post: https://medium.com/@coralinead...
Note that the guy in question was not banned or removed or sanctioned in any way, all that happened is a CoC stating explicitly that those kinds of transphobic statements should not be made in official project spaces was adopted.
So if we are talking about making a mountain out of a mole hill... I think the people meta-complaining about it are blowing it out of all proportion.
Your second link is 11,000 words, estimated reading time 1 hour. So TL:DR I'm afraid but generally speaking false rape allegations are an issue we should all be concerned about, but nothing to do with a Code of Conduct.
Yukihiro Matsumoto: Not removed. Added the CoC himself: https://github.com/ruby/www.ru...
The only controversy I could find was this call for a more comprehensive CoC to be adopted, particularly because the one selected doesn't have any enforcement mechanism: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/iss...
Elia Schito: Not banned. As a result of a complaint (that was accepted by the maintainer) a Code of Conduct was adopted, although note that it doesn't cover activity outside of official project spaces so the tweets in question would not be an issue with it anyway.
So still no examples of people being forced out due to CoC violations, or any retroactive application of the terms, or application to things said outside of official project spaces.
Nope.
Here we have one guy getting his digs in before the expected wave of complaints... That never came. He starts badly by quoting "I did not make a statement asking for him to be removed from the board", rather undermining his argument. Plus they are complaining that the CoC is inadequate, not celebrating the creation of a weapon they plan to use.
He throws in a bit of dead naming and general complaints, assuming that these will turn into CoC complaints... But they haven't. No-one bothered to reply, for obvious reasons.
Come on AC, you have had years and years to collect some examples of people being unfairly sanctioned for CoC violations. If this is the best you can do then I must conclude that there are no examples and these fears are unfounded.
Thank you AC. Know that I LOL'ed.
You mean that Sage Sharp said on Twitter that his past statements on rape made it difficult to have faith in the board's ability to enforce the CoC?
The thread is here for reference: https://twitter.com/_sagesharp...
She is arguing that the CoC is ineffective and should be improved by adding more details of how to contact the board privately and securely, and that the current set-up where the board has access to an archive of complaints (which could potentially be about board members) is inadequate.
So this doesn't appear to be anything like the claims being made about the CoC being used to get people removed/banned over minor, past statements. Note that she doesn't say Theo should be removed, she says that the Technical Advisory Board is the wrong organization to be dealing with these complaints.
So far there is no evidence that these fears are true, despite literally years of asking for examples and ample time for problems to develop.
Victory? This was the deal they offered him and which he rejected. He didn't want it, he wanted to fight them.
This is Musk admitting defeat and that he can't win in court, so taking the deal offered.
What case is that? I did a quick search but couldn't find it.
Really though, is it worse now than under Steve "holding it wrong" Jobs, who was well known for treating engineers badly and being an all around ass?
Got any examples of this happening?
Debian or FreeBSD maybe, they adopted Codes of Conduct that were considered likely to have this affect some years ago, so presumably it's manifested itself by now.
Care to show us some of these prior examples?