So if someone turns up to a teabagger protest and lobs a brick through a window, the police should just lock everyone up because those scum failed to prevent it?
Sounds like an easy way to crush any political movement you don't like by getting its members arrested. It's relatively easy to turn up in a mask, lob a brick and run away without getting caught.
I guess the anti-Trump protests are neither smart nor well run because all I hear about, even from networks with an obvious agenda like CNN, are antifa causing mayhem.
Because peaceful protests are uninteresting and not newsworthy in their eyes. Crime gets much better ratings.
Considering the way some parts of society treats transgender people, it's no wonder they develop other issues. Even just getting treatment for their primary one is often difficult and degrading.
No, it's 40% at they have attempted suicide at some point. The likelihood is 82% lower for people who get strong support.
That number includes many people who grew up at a time when there was less support and more bigotry. It's not valid for young people looking to join the military.
The only fair thing is to evaluate individuals. The military already evaluates every recruit, so why have a blanket ban?
There isn't a definitive biological definition of sex. Chromosomes, genitals, hormone levels, none of them are clear cut or work on all cases.
Ask sports bodies like the IOC about it. They have been trying to come up with a biological definition for a century. The current policy is to simply limit testosterone levels in female sports.
It only talks about the percentage of funded companies with women on the executive team. That's all.
No, it doesn't talk about that at all. You haven't read it, have you? You are just pretending to have.
The study doesn't look at the percentage that were funded. How could it, when no-one keeps stats on how many pitches were received but rejected? What it looks at is the amount of money invested via VC funding in over 6000 companies in a two year time span, and what proportion of that funding went to companies with at least one woman on the team making the pitch. Not even the executive team necessarily, just near the top of the company. It's all detailed in the study.
They found that such companies get less VC funding by quite a big margin, despite on average providing a significantly better return on investment.
It's hard for investors to overcome their subconscious biases, even when the rational part of their brain knows that mixed teams are a better investment. The study looked at outcomes and found strong evidence that mixed teams provided a significantly better ROI than all-male ones.
The problem is that the bias is really subtle. The investor perceives the pitch as weaker when coming from a woman (again, two studies demonstrating that with repeatable experiments are cited) so they think it's more risky, and even if their conscious mind tells them it's happening and that statistically it's a better investment... The pitch is very influential, especially when you are betting on something new and unproven from new people with no prior record of success (if it were otherwise they wouldn't be asking you for money).
Male entrepreneurs don't get pregnant. Male entrepreneurs will 99.9% of the time not ask for parental leave. Male entrepreneurs typically don't need to go home to pick up their sick child from school at 1pm (because they are supported by strong women at home).
Thing is, companies with women on the team had better outcomes on average. They made the investors more money. So if anything:
Fact: all-male groups present a higher risk to VC funding than mixed ones.
Why? I can only speculate, but maybe because all-male groups where only 0.1% are willing to take paternity leave and don't participate so much in family life tend to burn out make poor decisions more often. Good work/life balance, something more common in mixed groups, produces better overall results.
You can read the paper they are citing. Basically they took it beyond just the sex of the person asking for investment by comparing pitches with different gender signifiers, meaning comparing feminine language, mannerisms, dress and the like with masculine versions.
So basically, the more masculine a woman acts the less she is disadvantaged. Appearance, tone of voice, choice of words etc. The mere fact that the investor knows the gender of the entrepreneur doesn't seem to have much effect, it's how they subconsciously react to the manner in which the pitch is delivered, which confirms the theory that the problem is institutional and not overt sexism.
They just took all the VC funded companies and counted ones with women listed on the company profile.
It's a literal post hoc condition for determination of likelihood of receiving VC funding.
The actual study doesn't make the claim in those terms. It looks at the amount of VC funding received. Maybe TFA doesn't report it well, but that's not the fault of the study.
Any it couldn't really be any other way, because I doubt anyone keeps stats on the number of companies that pitch and get nothing. That doesn't mean that the conclusions they draw are invalid automatically.
Disregarding the fact that they are confusing "one out of every 10 women in the United States" with 11% OF the 13% OF the working population... in the process of starting or running a NEW business.
You misread it. They are saying that 13% of the working population is involved in starting or running a new business. That includes all employees working for such businesses in any role. 13% is the number for both genders. If you split i by gender, it's 11% of working women and 16% of working men.
Admittedly, it was phrased badly. It's actually "one out of every 10 working women in the United States."
Right, so it depends on the individual and how they are affected, and allowances are made to let people with colourblindness serve but not in certain roles where it matters.
Which suggests that similar evaluations and allowances can be made for transgender people.
They made identical pitches and found that the gender of the person making the pitch affected the outcome. Both male and female investors were affected in the same way, biased against women making the pitch.
It's what is known as institutional sexism. The individual investors are not necessarily sexist or consciously biased, it's a more general bias in a society that portrays masculinity as stronger and more reliable or desirable.
Their study therefore says nothing about whether women on your founding team has anything to do with whether you will get funding. It just says there are less women founders.
That is incorrect. You are assuming that "received venture capital" is a single, one-off event with equal value every time. As they make clear in the study, it's not. Companies get multiple investments, and the investments differ in size. Therefore, what they look at is not the number of investments if a binary invested/not invested, but the total monetary value of those investments per company.
With a sample size of over 6000 in a timeframe of 2 years, that's statistically valid. They acknowledge that there may be other factors at work, but none of them could account for the very large discrepancy.
"Are there differences in performance outcomes between male and female entrepreneurs funded by venture capital?
When looking at outcome measures, we see that company valuations are significantly and consistently higher for companies with a woman on the team than those with no women."
If you bothered to read the study, they vite evidence that proves causation:
"The effects of sex were investigated in a study of men and women pitching in three experiments, where the results showed that investors prefer pitches presented by men, even when the content of the pitch is the same (Brooks et al. 2014)"
"More specifically, another study of venture pitches finds different results, where sex of the entrepreneur does not influence investor preference for the venture but gender does, whereby there were systematic biases against femininity, and entrepreneurial competence was associated with masculinity (Balachandra et al.)"
Maybe not... By the time the ban comes it, it might be hard to buy a combustion engine car. I expect there will be some specialist vehicles still on the market, but the vast majority will be electric.
If they noticed that teams that include women are statistically non-negligibly less likely to succeed, they will use that knowledge.
That doesn't seem likely or supported by any evidence.
More likely, they are mostly not consciously being sexist, deliberately discriminating against teams with women on them. Rather, there is subconscious bias. Both men and women exhibit this bias. Doesn't make them bad people, just human.
"Modern sensibilities" is just a way if dismissing people you disagree with. It's a lot like "political correctness", just a label to apply to silence people saying things you don't like.
It really depends on the nature of the condition... Poor eyesight requires life-long treatment in the form of glasses or contacts. The question here is, would be a trans person affect their ability to do the job. And the job ranges from fighting on the front lines to pushing pencils.
To be honest it sounds kind of harsh that they wouldn't let you in. I don't know how your condition affects you, but would it have stopped you from, say, being a maintenance engineer or operating a radar array or driving a supply truck?
And my understanding was that the US military has problems recruiting too, at least periodically when major wars are in progress.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the markets functioned better before the SEC.
Yeah, 1928 was glorious. Maybe read the Pecora Commission's report on how awesome that time was for investors.
So if someone turns up to a teabagger protest and lobs a brick through a window, the police should just lock everyone up because those scum failed to prevent it?
Sounds like an easy way to crush any political movement you don't like by getting its members arrested. It's relatively easy to turn up in a mask, lob a brick and run away without getting caught.
I guess the anti-Trump protests are neither smart nor well run because all I hear about, even from networks with an obvious agenda like CNN, are antifa causing mayhem.
Because peaceful protests are uninteresting and not newsworthy in their eyes. Crime gets much better ratings.
Considering the way some parts of society treats transgender people, it's no wonder they develop other issues. Even just getting treatment for their primary one is often difficult and degrading.
That's a rather arbitrary definition. So what about men who get testicular cancer? Do they become neuter?
No, it's 40% at they have attempted suicide at some point. The likelihood is 82% lower for people who get strong support.
That number includes many people who grew up at a time when there was less support and more bigotry. It's not valid for young people looking to join the military.
The only fair thing is to evaluate individuals. The military already evaluates every recruit, so why have a blanket ban?
Same argument was made about gay people serving. Turned out not to be an issue.
The US military spends 10x as much on Viagra as it does on gender reassignment.
There isn't a definitive biological definition of sex. Chromosomes, genitals, hormone levels, none of them are clear cut or work on all cases.
Ask sports bodies like the IOC about it. They have been trying to come up with a biological definition for a century. The current policy is to simply limit testosterone levels in female sports.
Those stories always get the most comments. That suggests that people like commenting on them.
If you want them to stop, stop commenting.
It only talks about the percentage of funded companies with women on the executive team. That's all.
No, it doesn't talk about that at all. You haven't read it, have you? You are just pretending to have.
The study doesn't look at the percentage that were funded. How could it, when no-one keeps stats on how many pitches were received but rejected? What it looks at is the amount of money invested via VC funding in over 6000 companies in a two year time span, and what proportion of that funding went to companies with at least one woman on the team making the pitch. Not even the executive team necessarily, just near the top of the company. It's all detailed in the study.
They found that such companies get less VC funding by quite a big margin, despite on average providing a significantly better return on investment.
It's hard for investors to overcome their subconscious biases, even when the rational part of their brain knows that mixed teams are a better investment. The study looked at outcomes and found strong evidence that mixed teams provided a significantly better ROI than all-male ones.
The problem is that the bias is really subtle. The investor perceives the pitch as weaker when coming from a woman (again, two studies demonstrating that with repeatable experiments are cited) so they think it's more risky, and even if their conscious mind tells them it's happening and that statistically it's a better investment... The pitch is very influential, especially when you are betting on something new and unproven from new people with no prior record of success (if it were otherwise they wouldn't be asking you for money).
Male entrepreneurs don't get pregnant. Male entrepreneurs will 99.9% of the time not ask for parental leave. Male entrepreneurs typically don't need to go home to pick up their sick child from school at 1pm (because they are supported by strong women at home).
Thing is, companies with women on the team had better outcomes on average. They made the investors more money. So if anything:
Fact: all-male groups present a higher risk to VC funding than mixed ones.
Why? I can only speculate, but maybe because all-male groups where only 0.1% are willing to take paternity leave and don't participate so much in family life tend to burn out make poor decisions more often. Good work/life balance, something more common in mixed groups, produces better overall results.
You can read the paper they are citing. Basically they took it beyond just the sex of the person asking for investment by comparing pitches with different gender signifiers, meaning comparing feminine language, mannerisms, dress and the like with masculine versions.
So basically, the more masculine a woman acts the less she is disadvantaged. Appearance, tone of voice, choice of words etc. The mere fact that the investor knows the gender of the entrepreneur doesn't seem to have much effect, it's how they subconsciously react to the manner in which the pitch is delivered, which confirms the theory that the problem is institutional and not overt sexism.
They just took all the VC funded companies and counted ones with women listed on the company profile.
It's a literal post hoc condition for determination of likelihood of receiving VC funding.
The actual study doesn't make the claim in those terms. It looks at the amount of VC funding received. Maybe TFA doesn't report it well, but that's not the fault of the study.
Any it couldn't really be any other way, because I doubt anyone keeps stats on the number of companies that pitch and get nothing. That doesn't mean that the conclusions they draw are invalid automatically.
Disregarding the fact that they are confusing "one out of every 10 women in the United States" with 11% OF the 13% OF the working population... in the process of starting or running a NEW business.
You misread it. They are saying that 13% of the working population is involved in starting or running a new business. That includes all employees working for such businesses in any role. 13% is the number for both genders. If you split i by gender, it's 11% of working women and 16% of working men.
Admittedly, it was phrased badly. It's actually "one out of every 10 working women in the United States."
Right, so it depends on the individual and how they are affected, and allowances are made to let people with colourblindness serve but not in certain roles where it matters.
Which suggests that similar evaluations and allowances can be made for transgender people.
An earlier study, cited in this one, looked at this issue: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi...
They made identical pitches and found that the gender of the person making the pitch affected the outcome. Both male and female investors were affected in the same way, biased against women making the pitch.
It's what is known as institutional sexism. The individual investors are not necessarily sexist or consciously biased, it's a more general bias in a society that portrays masculinity as stronger and more reliable or desirable.
Their study therefore says nothing about whether women on your founding team has anything to do with whether you will get funding. It just says there are less women founders.
That is incorrect. You are assuming that "received venture capital" is a single, one-off event with equal value every time. As they make clear in the study, it's not. Companies get multiple investments, and the investments differ in size. Therefore, what they look at is not the number of investments if a binary invested/not invested, but the total monetary value of those investments per company.
With a sample size of over 6000 in a timeframe of 2 years, that's statistically valid. They acknowledge that there may be other factors at work, but none of them could account for the very large discrepancy.
According to the study, it's the exact opposite:
"Are there differences in performance outcomes between male and female entrepreneurs funded by venture capital?
When looking at outcome measures, we see that company valuations are significantly and consistently higher for companies with a woman on the team than those with no women."
If you bothered to read the study, they vite evidence that proves causation:
"The effects of sex were investigated in a study of men and women pitching in three experiments, where the results showed that investors prefer pitches presented by men, even when the content of the pitch is the same (Brooks et al. 2014)"
"More specifically, another study of venture pitches finds different results, where sex of the entrepreneur does not influence investor preference for the venture but gender does, whereby there were systematic biases against femininity, and entrepreneurial competence was associated with masculinity (Balachandra et al.)"
Maybe not... By the time the ban comes it, it might be hard to buy a combustion engine car. I expect there will be some specialist vehicles still on the market, but the vast majority will be electric.
How would allowing transgender people to serve be "preferring" them?
If they noticed that teams that include women are statistically non-negligibly less likely to succeed, they will use that knowledge.
That doesn't seem likely or supported by any evidence.
More likely, they are mostly not consciously being sexist, deliberately discriminating against teams with women on them. Rather, there is subconscious bias. Both men and women exhibit this bias. Doesn't make them bad people, just human.
"Modern sensibilities" is just a way if dismissing people you disagree with. It's a lot like "political correctness", just a label to apply to silence people saying things you don't like.
I've seen soldiers wearing glasses on TV. What happens if their glasses get broken and they don't have access to another pair?
It really depends on the nature of the condition... Poor eyesight requires life-long treatment in the form of glasses or contacts. The question here is, would be a trans person affect their ability to do the job. And the job ranges from fighting on the front lines to pushing pencils.
To be honest it sounds kind of harsh that they wouldn't let you in. I don't know how your condition affects you, but would it have stopped you from, say, being a maintenance engineer or operating a radar array or driving a supply truck?
And my understanding was that the US military has problems recruiting too, at least periodically when major wars are in progress.