Please put two and two together for the rest of us clowns who can’t quite figure it out. State your beliefs plainly so we can come up with some solutions.

Are you saying you think trans people are causing software quality to decrease? How exactly? Please state your belief clearly.

No, it's the focus on whatever rainbow-coloured culture war crap that has nothing to do with software engineering that's creating a distraction and allowing incompetence to thrive.

I don't care if developers are cis trans black white male female or dogs[1] if they are competent. But there seems to be a recent trend of some who cry discrimination when their sub-par work is called out.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_...

> But there seems to be a recent trend of some who cry discrimination when their sub-par work is called out.

This sounds like you worked with or heard about 1 trans person who did shoddy work and now it's a "recent trend" that all trans software devs are saying it's discrimination.

Yeah, it's usually white guys complaining that they got passed over for some trans person or whatever who insist that there's discrimination when they get called out for sub-par work.

I actually think that part of the increased prevalence of trans women (i.e. AMAB people who identify as women) in the software industry, is AMAB people who would otherwise be considered men for DEI purposes changing their own conception of their own gender in a way that would make them be counted as women for DEI purposes. I don't think this is the only thing driving gender transition in a general sense, but I know a fair number of trans women and other AMAB genderqueer people in programming-adjacent spaces, and I suspect that the general cultural currents that incentivize gender-based DEI programs also affect people who are otherwise gender-questioning in some fashion.

----

"The doctors are sympathetic, and I think some of them even understand—regardless, they can offer no solace beyond the chemical. They are too kind to resent, but my envy is palpable. One, a trans woman, is especially gentle; perhaps because her own frustrations mirror mine, our cognitive distance sabotaging her authenticity." - https://ctrlcreep.substack.com/p/knowing-ones-place

Jumping in here. Nobody (or almost nobody) is saying that these demographics are inherently worse engineers. But the policies to promote them are inherently discriminatory. You can't promote people based on what they look like without compromising on other attributes like skill. There are companies out there literally saying "We need less white people" and listing off every possible demographic as "welcome" except for white men, in the job posting.

I remember attending a company meeting a few years ago where our Chief People Officer announced in front of everyone that a new C-level role was open to run our IT organization and that it was exclusively open to women of color.

I remember thinking to myself: "Woah, that's not only extremely illegal but also I potentially would qualify for such a role without said requirement. I wish I'd recorded that."

The person they hired ended up being a disaster in the two years she was with us and she hired an entire organization underneath her that was exclusively of her own ethnicity...and I don't mean her country but her own ethnic group within that country.

In some countries they've tried to mandate that some percentage of the executive board or C-level is women. That should be illegal. Businesses want the best people for the job. If women were actually discriminated against, a competitor could scoop them all up and make major profits. It's all political theater to get female votes at the expense of men and society as a whole.

The state of California passed two bills attempting to mandate this, both of which were ruled unconstitutional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_representation_on_corpo... :

> California passed Senate Bill 826 in October 2018, mandating gender diversity on the boards of public companies headquartered in California. The bill set deadlines in 2019 (for two women on five-person boards) and 2021 (for three women on seven-person boards).[66] It was challenged as unconstitutional on the grounds of violating equal protection.[67] The District Court ruled the challengers did not have standing, but was overturned by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The District Court then denied a preliminary injunction. It is now pending another appeal.[68] A separate lawsuit found the law unconstitutional on May 13, 2022.[69]

> In 2020, California passed Assembly Bill 979, requiring publicly held companies headquartered in California to include board members from underrepresented communities. The law requires at least one director from an underrepresented community by the end of 2021, and up to three, depending on board size, by the end of 2022.[70] The term "underrepresented community" is defined as "an individual who self‑identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self‑identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender."[71] The law was ruled unconstitutional on April 1, 2022.

Care to link to a few?

Every single one of these policies that I've seen over the last 20 years, including my role as a hiring manager in my past career, were aimed at leveling the playing field and providing equal opportunities to people who aren't in the majority. The only effect I've seen is that now people who look like me actually have to compete with others.

Edit: For the record I'm asking for links from reputable companies who would realistically be setting the tone for the industry. Not some random ass listing for contract work.

This outlines 3 separate lawsuits against IBM over this: https://lunduke.locals.com/post/6465642/3-anti-white-discrim...

Other companies I can think of are Google and Microsoft. Many huge open-source projects have openly promoted specific racial outcomes. I might dig up links later but if you actually care about this stuff, Lunduke is a great source of references.

>Every single one of these policies that I've seen over the last 20 years, including my role as a hiring manager in my past career, were aimed at leveling the playing field and providing equal opportunities to people who aren't in the majority.

That is how it's sold, but in practice it means you have to turn down perfectly good white people (especially white men) to get arbitrary demographic outcomes. If 13% of the population is black and almost none of them study engineering, you won't be able to get 13% representation without passing up on better white candidates. The same can be said about women and other minorities. Different demographics have different preferences and that is reflected in what they study and how hard they work at it. Yet we are supposed to think there is something nefarious if there is even a minor discrepancy in outcomes. Give me a break. This isn't the 1950s. Nobody would risk discriminating against a minority because it could cause a lawsuit. But discrimination against whites and men is not treated the same way, even when it can be proved positively. One of those 3 lawsuits against IBM was dismissed by an activist judge with a one-sentence non-explanation for example. If you complain about this stuff publicly your career is going to be damaged and everyone will at best think you are a bad sport.

You're specific statement was that companies were listing job postings saying white men weren't welcome. I don't see any evidence of that.

I'm going to try very very hard to ignore the fact it was James O'Keefe that "broke" that story. He's only one step above Info Wars when it comes to being a reliable source, and it's well established he doctors videos to fit his narrative.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume that IBM did do something illegal here: they deserve to be sued and the person who was discriminated against is entitled to some kind of compensation (regardless of race/gender). But that's hardly evidence of some grand conspiracy against white men.

But maybe we can approach this conversation from a different angle. You clearly have a different view from me, so let's try to build up from some common starting place

Would you say it's a reasonable assertion that someone born into immense wealth and privilege (regardless of race/gender/sexual orientation) has substantially more opportunities in their life then someone born in abject poverty?

>You're specific statement was that companies were listing job postings saying white men weren't welcome. I don't see any evidence of that.

Sorry, I don't have time to satisfy arbitrary demands like this. Job postings are ephemeral anyway. There have been articles written about this but I don't have links, and the way you're coming at me tells me you will never be satisfied.

>I'm going to try very very hard to ignore the fact it was James O'Keefe that "broke" that story. He's only one step above Info Wars when it comes to being a reliable source, and it's well established he doctors videos to fit his narrative.

O'Keefe did not originate this story. Lunduke gets a number of leaks himself. If you expect these maverick journalists to be well-liked, you're being totally unreasonable.

>But for the sake of argument, let's assume that IBM did do something illegal here: they deserve to be sued and the person who was discriminated against is entitled to some kind of compensation (regardless of race/gender). But that's hardly evidence of some grand conspiracy against white men.

CEOs of companies saying out in the open that they want more "representation" and that there are bonuses for hiring minorities not good enough? There are billions of dollars being spent specifically to attack whites and white men specifically, and to discourage whites from forming families. I'm not going to argue with you on this point. This should be rather obvious.

>Would you say it's a reasonable assertion that someone born into immense wealth and privilege (regardless of race/gender/sexual orientation) has substantially more opportunities in their life then someone born in abject poverty?

I know exactly where you want to take this and let me stop you right there. Would you agree that, assuming we are allocating financial assistance to poor people, that all equally poor people are equally deserving of help regardless of what they look like, or what is between their legs, or who they like to sleep with?

Anything that tries to blame present-day whites for crimes of the past is effectively collective punishment. Meanwhile, you can't even extract retribution from the children of convicted criminals at present, yet we are supposed to take the blame for a few individuals in the past based on the mere fact that they look like us? There is no evidence of widespread collusion against minorities at present. To the very limited extent you might argue that, I could argue that people of other demographics prefer their own consistently.

I don't actually want to continue this discussion lol. It's too tedious and I don't expect to convince you of anything based on how you write. But hopefully some of what I've said will lead you to reconsider some of your mainstream beliefs.

> were aimed at leveling the playing field and providing equal opportunities to people who aren't in the majority.

If your company was complying with the law, the playing field was already definitionally level.

How does this assertion hold? Are we assuming the law as currently constructed creates a level playing field?

It's not an assumption, it's what the law says. In the US, in Canada and in every other sufficiently advanced nation.

If you disagree, it's because you disagree about what "level" means.

It's as the other poster says:

> There are companies out there literally saying "We need less white people" and listing off every possible demographic as "welcome" except for white men, in the job posting.

When you do this, the playing field is ipso facto not level. When you "welcome" people regardless of demographic characteristics, and refuse to take these characteristics into consideration in the hiring process the playing field is ipso facto level.

The law can say all kinds of things that aren't (scientifically) true. We can pass a law that says the sun revolves around the Earth, and it's legally true if we do.

I'd think if our backstop for understanding if a level playing field was created by the law is the law, we'd want to verify the claim by external signal such as outcome observation if we aspire to some objective assessment.

The law required you not to discriminate on the basis of sex etc.

I am the one saying that this is inherently fair, and that doing so produces a definitionally level playing field.

Because that's just true. That's how fairness works. Fairness is when you don't discriminate on the basis of things (here, race, sex etc.) irrelevant to the decision you're trying to make (here, suitability for the position). Bias is when you do.

Your definition of fairness suggests that when someone is born poor, suffers, and dies poor, and someone is born rich, gets to enjoy all the things wealth brings a person in life, and dies rich, even though they did nothing in particular to earn their station in life... That's fair.

I think civilizations have been struggling for several centuries with whether that's good enough. We are, in fact, coming up on the Christmas season for those who celebrate, and there's a pretty good story an Englishman wrote in the 1800s on this topic. Something about three spirits visiting and what a man's life comes to, even when he plays by every single written rule.

(You're hitting the nail on the head. Equality of opportunity vs. equality of possible outcome is the division in philosophy in this space. Are you familiar with the thought experiment Lyndon B. Johnson spoke of in 1965 about a relay race where the runners have unequal starting lines?)

> Your definition of fairness suggests that when someone is born poor, suffers, and dies poor, and someone is born rich, gets to enjoy all the things wealth brings a person in life, and dies rich, even though they did nothing in particular to earn their station in life... That's fair.

No. I said nothing of the sort.

What I said is that when those things happen, and then an employer disregards that history in the course of making a hiring assessment, the employer acted fairly.

It is not incumbent upon the employer to attempt to right prior injustices. It is in fact wrong to expect the employer to do so. Because the employer did not cause them.

> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

I am done with this discussion, in all sub-threads, because this is clearly going no where.

You didn't say it directly; your definition suggests it as a logical inference.

> The law required you not to discriminate on the basis of sex etc.

> I am the one saying that this is inherently fair

So if most men start on a playing field where they are wealthier and most women on one where they are poorer, a level playing field will tend to maintain that level of inequality, will it not? And by your definition that would e fair.

In fact, there'd be an interesting observable consequence of this scenario: were it truly level, one could begin to observe population-level phenomena like "women are just poorer; that's innate to them" and be correct in observation but with an error in causality; it's not so much "innate" as "initial conditions coupled with a lack of mobility."

If it were initial conditions and a lack of mobility... An un-level playing field would encourage more mobility, would it not? And if you made it un-level in the right way, perhaps you could start to zero out those initial-conditions effects?