> There is no research (to the best of my knowledge) claiming that there are biological differences between the same sex of different races.
I mean it's not controversial to argue that on average caucasian men are taller than asian men. I can't find a quotation for that exact fact right now but let's just assume it's true for the sake of argument. It's a toy example anyway.
If it's scientific doesn't mean I can argue without repercussion that I should be allowed to cut before asian men in the line in the cafeteria because as tall people we are always hungrier. Even arguing that would (rightly) be considered racist.
I tried to make a toy example but you get my drift - the use of a scientific fact in argument can be racist.
Even if you don't agree with my toy example (either the made up fact or the toy argument) - would you agree that IF scientific argument is found that e.g. one race has less cognitive ability than another that might be "good science" (although ethically questionalble science) - that most uses of such facts e.g in arguments would in fact still be racist? Or do you still insist that scientific facts make all arguments and actions based on them non-racist?
> If it's scientific doesn't mean I can argue without repercussion that I should be allowed to cut before asian men in the line in the cafeteria because as tall people we are always hungrier. Even arguing that would (rightly) be considered racist.
Suppose that height is an advantage in basketball and we thereby discover that asian men are underrepresented in the NBA. Are you claiming that is racist and something we have to do something to change?
I don't. However, it's a fine line. Pro sports is a bit special, but it might be racist to not let a player try out because of an asian name, quoting that "thanks for your letter, but asian men are on average so short that we don't want to see you". Context, and what precise actions are taken is important here.
The underrepresntation of black people in tech isn't "racist" though there are probably a lot of racist actions taken place that led up to it, and of course tons of structural racism that cause it long term. But the discrepancy isn't "racist" in itself. It's just a discrepancy.
> Pro sports is a bit special, but it might be racist to not let a player try out because of an asian name, quoting that "thanks for your letter, but asian men are on average so short that we don't want to see you".
Well of course it is, but it's inaccurate to suggest that the gender disparity in tech is entirely attributable to companies turning away female applicants on account of their gender. And if the suggestion was for some hypothetical company that was doing that to stop, there would be no objection.
The problem comes when the portion of the gender disparity that isn't attributable to discrimination is attributed to it anyway, and then employers are continually lambasted for something they didn't actually do.
It distracts from addressing the real problems (especially at the high school level) that could actually improve the gender ratio going forward.
> it's inaccurate to suggest that the gender disparity in tech is entirely attributable to companies turning away female applicants on account of their gender.
I mean it's not controversial to argue that on average caucasian men are taller than asian men. I can't find a quotation for that exact fact right now but let's just assume it's true for the sake of argument. It's a toy example anyway.
If it's scientific doesn't mean I can argue without repercussion that I should be allowed to cut before asian men in the line in the cafeteria because as tall people we are always hungrier. Even arguing that would (rightly) be considered racist.
I tried to make a toy example but you get my drift - the use of a scientific fact in argument can be racist.
Even if you don't agree with my toy example (either the made up fact or the toy argument) - would you agree that IF scientific argument is found that e.g. one race has less cognitive ability than another that might be "good science" (although ethically questionalble science) - that most uses of such facts e.g in arguments would in fact still be racist? Or do you still insist that scientific facts make all arguments and actions based on them non-racist?