Men Overran a Job Fair For Women In Tech (wired.com) 692
"Every year the Grace Hopper Celebration, a conference and career fair aimed at non-males, brings women in the tech industry together," writes long-time Slashdot reader piojo. "This year, a large number of men showed up. The women were not pleased." Wired reports: AnitaB.org, the nonprofit that runs the conference, said there was "an increase in participation of self-identifying males" at this year's event. The nonprofit says it believes allyship from men is important and noted it cannot ban men from attending due to federal nondiscrimination protections in the US. Organizers expressed frustration. Past iterations of the conference have "always felt safe and loving and embracing," said Bo Young Lee, president of advisory at AnitaB.org, in a LinkedIn post. "And this year, I must admit, I didn't feel this way."
Cullen White, AnitaB.org's chief impact officer, said in a video posted to X, formerly Twitter, that some registrants had lied about their gender identity when signing up, and men were now taking up space and time with recruiters that should go to women. "All of those are limited resources to which you have no right," White said. [...] During the conference, videos posted to TikTok showed a sea of men waiting in line to enter the conference or speak with recruiters in the expo hall. Men and women are seen running into the expo as a staffer yells for them to slow down. Avni Barman, the founder of female-talent focused media platform Gen She, says she immediately noticed "tons" more men and a more chaotic scene this time compared to previous years. According to Layoffs.fyi, tech companies around the world laid off more than 400,000 workers in 2022 and 2023. "As job cuts bite, all prospective tech workers have become more desperate for opportunities," reports Wired.
Cullen White, AnitaB.org's chief impact officer, said in a video posted to X, formerly Twitter, that some registrants had lied about their gender identity when signing up, and men were now taking up space and time with recruiters that should go to women. "All of those are limited resources to which you have no right," White said. [...] During the conference, videos posted to TikTok showed a sea of men waiting in line to enter the conference or speak with recruiters in the expo hall. Men and women are seen running into the expo as a staffer yells for them to slow down. Avni Barman, the founder of female-talent focused media platform Gen She, says she immediately noticed "tons" more men and a more chaotic scene this time compared to previous years. According to Layoffs.fyi, tech companies around the world laid off more than 400,000 workers in 2022 and 2023. "As job cuts bite, all prospective tech workers have become more desperate for opportunities," reports Wired.
Fluidity (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes people can be male, and sometimes they can be female. Shouldn't the conference be welcoming to all?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, the fair should have been illegal in the first place. You can't discriminate on the basis of gender. It's *illegal* .
Re: (Score:3)
Sometimes people can be male, and sometimes they can be female. Shouldn't the conference be welcoming to all?
You must be new in the USA. No, this is very specifically for women, and not at all for men.
This is like how "bring our daughters to work day ended up being called Bring our sons and daughters to work day. Mere wordsmithing to cover the sexist nature of the event. I helped with these for years. The boys were basically ignored.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The point of noting that they are "self identifying males" is to make it clear that they were not pretending to be women, they were not claiming to be transgender. They were just ordinary cisgender dudes, who decided that despite it being a conference for women they would sign up anyway.
The conference apparently didn't have any requirement to identify as female, it just relied on people doing the right thing. Abusing it seems kinda pointless - presumably the recruiters there were not showing much interest i
Re:Fluidity (Score:5, Insightful)
LOL..what a crazy fscked up world its become in the past 5-10 years.
We now have guys competing in women's sports, entering their job fairs...they're changing rooms, bathrooms....
And the thing is, this is largely upon the WOMEN of this country, as that they are the "accepting" ones, and trying to be 'inclusive' to what genuinely may be barely statistically significant sets of gender confused people, yet going overboard with it...and well....you reap when you sow.
Remember only a few years back when people brought up the argument that men will start to compete in women's sports...and other things happening now...and the overwhelming response was "Oh you're just gaslighting/overblowing things...that'll never happen..."
Re:Fluidity (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess your word is all that is needed there.
What exactly would you suggest instead of "someone's word" concerning whether they're non-binary?
Re: (Score:3)
what genuinely may be barely statistically significant sets of gender confused people,
Quite insignificant.
It seems that gender disphoria (the medical term for feeling that you are the wrong gender) may be much, much less common than many of the studies published in the past decade or so claim, due to errors in those studies. Erros that commonly occur when researchers prefer one result over the other. Meta-studies in the field are starting to appear. I proof-read one pre-publication earlier this year.
That doesn't mean even a rare condition doesn't deserve attention. Just not the MASSIVE amoun
Re: (Score:3)
That's bullshit. The theme of the article is that people want to work in the tech field. Desperate people do desperate things. This is not about men and women, it's about economics.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the way I heard it yesterday, they just registered as "Non-Binary"....which they allowed, and I guess your word is all that is needed there.
LOL..what a crazy fscked up world its become in the past 5-10 years.
We now have guys competing in women's sports, entering their job fairs...they're changing rooms, bathrooms....
And the thing is, this is largely upon the WOMEN of this country, as that they are the "accepting" ones, and trying to be 'inclusive' to what genuinely may be barely statistically significant sets of gender confused people, yet going overboard with it...and well....you reap when you sow.
Remember only a few years back when people brought up the argument that men will start to compete in women's sports...and other things happening now...and the overwhelming response was "Oh you're just gaslighting/overblowing things...that'll never happen..."
There is an elephant in the room. The people who are so confused that they believe that other than for the ability to give birth, that men and women are identical in every biological and psychological way tend to not like sports. So they are intruding into an area that they don't care if they destroy it.
What they don't seem to understand is they are pissing off the very people they once professed to help.
It's kinda heartbreaking. I'm a sports oriented guy, and understand the many positive aspects of sp
Re:Fluidity (Score:4, Insightful)
Trans women in women's sports is a different issue, and one which you can't resolve with a ban. It's been tried, by the IOC, for over a century. Turns out it's basically impossible to come up with a reliable and measurable definition of what a "natural" woman is without excluding a lot of cisgender women.
You don't exclude a lot of cisgender women with a reliable and measurable definition. They aren't excluded if they are allowed to compete in the non-female division. Perfect is, indeed, the worst enemy of good. We have "female" athletes (not males identify as female, but ones who were biologically assigned female at birth) who turn out to have had male genitalia as well and gone through male puberty. Let the biological outliers compete in their own division. Don't flood the female division with males to the point that girls can't enjoy playing sports.
Re:Fluidity (Score:4, Interesting)
So then the question becomes what kind of winners are allowed?
The question is, what kind of participants are allowed.
A male has been infused with testosterone more than a female from I'm guessing adolescence if not earlier. So if a dude "transitioned" to a (pretend) woman, and he wants to compete with women, you need to give it time for that pre-transition testosterone advantage to wear off. Which is, when -- 2 years after? 5? 10? So only after the dude has been taking female hormones and male hormone suppressants for long enough should he be allowed to compete with females (aka women).
Which, in sports, is effectively never, except maybe as marathoners later in life.
Re: Fluidity (Score:5, Funny)
The science is settled. You should trust science.
Re: (Score:3)
The only fair way to conduct sports is to separate men from women. (And yes, I'm using the historical definitions of those words. You know, the definitions based on sex.)
Re:Fluidity (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, you need to simply develop an objective classification system for that advantage, measure athletes by that objective classification system, then allow athletes in the same class to compete.
This is insanely complicated and guaranteed to fail and be unfair in many ways, and for what? Why do the men with mental health issues regarding their gender identity have to compete with women in sports? They have much bigger problems in life than not swimming with girls.
In my view, the rule should simply be, if you are born male you cannot compete with women. If you are born female and want to compete with men, help yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
The difference here is that there are males who can simply declare they "identify" as women and ruin the sports for women.
And again, for what? Why complicate the system even further only to slap so many women participants in the face with such obvious injustice? If the dude wants to transition, let him do the transitioning work by himself, not compete in women's sports and crap on everyone's achievements. He ruins it for the audience too, who came to watch women competing, not a pretend woman with a pronoun
Re:Fluidity (Score:4, Insightful)
Although it's true for some *very* small fraction of the population, for the overwhelming majority of the population, the line between male and female is sharp and bright. We have weight classes in sports. Those aren't exact either. I can assure you that almost every weightlifter/powerlifter weighs 3-5kg more after competition than they did at the start. Should we use that to say that lifter who weight 79.05kg should be able to compete in -79kg? Of course not. We set a bright line even if imperfect.
And there's no reason that different athletic organizers and different sports can set different standards. Maybe somebody qualifies as female per IPF but not IPL. They can compete IPF female or IPL male depending on their preferences.
In many sports, officiating isn't perfect. How many arguments are there on Monday morning about supposedly bad (American) football calls by the referees?
You do the best you can to set a standard. And sure some people will think they should compete as female and feel "cheated." I'm sympathetic to them. But no more so than to a team that is convinced that the umpire called a ball as a strike.
I'm male but my voice is half an octave higher than most men, but I don't ask to compete as a woman.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That we have a women's division is and should be exclusively the domain of p
Re:Fluidity (Score:5, Insightful)
In the video and photos of the event, it can be seen that these guys have "he/him" pronouns on their badges. Most non-binary people use "they/them", although of course it's not mandatory and they can use he/him if they want to.
But still, it has nothing to do with trans people. These guys are clearly not trans, they self identify as the same gender they were assigned at birth, and did not pretend to be trans to get in. It's just a bunch of arseholes abusing a system that can't reasonably check them out before hand. Even if all non-binary and trans people were banned, it would do nothing to stop people lying on the application form. What are you going to do when they turn up, set up a genital inspection point at the entrance? Turn away any woman who doesn't look feminine enough?
Trans women in women's sports is a different issue, and one which you can't resolve with a ban. It's been tried, by the IOC, for over a century. Turns out it's basically impossible to come up with a reliable and measurable definition of what a "natural" woman is without excluding a lot of cisgender women.
Trans and "non-binary" are not the same thing.
They have already banned biological men from many women's sports, and this will only expand after this report just released by The American College of Sports Medicine: https://journals.lww.com/acsm-... [lww.com] called "The Biological Basis of Sex Differences in Athletic Performance: Consensus Statement for the American College of Sports Medicine". The primary conclusions are:
The science shows that biological sex is a primary determinant of athletic performance and physical tasks because of fundamental sex differences in anatomy and physiology dictated by sex chromosomes.
The primary cause for the large sex difference in athletic performance is exposure to high levels of endogenous testosterone in boys at the onset of puberty (~12 years) that will rise ~20-30 fold in males during puberty and is 15 times higher in adult males than females by 18 years of age.
These sex differences in athletic performance emerge with the onset of puberty due to the anabolic effects of the endogenous sex steroid hormone, testosterone in males.
Adult men are stronger, more powerful, and faster than women of similar age and training status outperforming females by 10-30% in athletic events that require muscle power and/or aerobic capacity.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Trans and "non-binary" are not the same thing.
In the same way that rectangle and square are not the same thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Trans and "non-binary" are not the same thing.
In the same way that rectangle and square are not the same thing.
Very bad example. You don't understand these terms at all
Re:Fluidity (Score:5, Insightful)
But still, it has nothing to do with trans people. These guys are clearly not trans, they self identify as the same gender they were assigned at birth, and did not pretend to be trans to get in. It's just a bunch of arseholes abusing a system that can't reasonably check them out before hand. Even if all non-binary and trans people were banned, it would do nothing to stop people lying on the application form. What are you going to do when they turn up, set up a genital inspection point at the entrance? Turn away any woman who doesn't look feminine enough?
Trans women in women's sports is a different issue, and one which you can't resolve with a ban. It's been tried, by the IOC, for over a century. Turns out it's basically impossible to come up with a reliable and measurable definition of what a "natural" woman is without excluding a lot of cisgender women.
Side note: no one has a “gender they were assigned at birth.” People have a sex. It’s either male or female. It’s determined by your chromosomes. It’s set at conception when the sperm meets the egg. The only thing that the doctor does at birth is record your sex. Even so, most parents can get an ultrasound and determine the sex of their kid months before birth. This whole “assigned at birth” stuff is nonsense. It makes it sound like the doctor is giving you some arbitrary label and declaring “that’s your sex!” That’s not what happens. Stop using that bullshit language.
You don’t need a genital inspection point for anything to determine sex. You can go off the sex recorded on your birth certificate or license. Of course, that’s presuming your state hasn’t been taken over by a bunch of trans ideologues who will let people arbitrarily change the sex on their birth certificate or license. If that’s the case, then I say yes, set up the genital inspection station. Fuck them for making stupid changes to the law. Make it completely clear the stupidity of these sorts of legal changes.
As for women in sport, it’s easy to come up with a definition of woman that can be used in sport. A woman is an adult human female. A female is a person with the body type that produces eggs. In general terms, it’s the adults with vaginas - not the ones with penises.
Re:Fluidity (Score:5, Insightful)
People have a sex. Itâ(TM)s either male or female. Itâ(TM)s determined by your chromosomes. Itâ(TM)s set at conception when the sperm meets the egg. The only thing that the doctor does at birth is record your sex.
Your doctor administered a chromosome test before filling out the sex on your birth certificate?
Things must have changed since I was born. Mine just glanced between my legs and wrote "M" on the paper. Spelt my name wrong too, had to get that fixed.
Chromosomes are not a good way to determine biological sex. The International Olympic Committee tried, but found too many women, with vaginas and working wombs etc. were coming up with a decent proportion of XY cells. In fact not long ago a woman who was 95% XY was able to give birth to a healthy baby: https://www.independent.co.uk/... [independent.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
You're not refuting the point: Presumably you agree that that men who have XY chromosomes and produce small gametes are not women. Yes, intersex conditions and chimeras exist. That doesn't mean that men can become women. If you produce sperm you're not a woman, and if you produce eggs you're not a man.
Yes, you can portray yourself as the opposite sex and sometimes even do it well enough to the point where most people won't care. But for purposes of human sexual reproduction, for which every single human on
Re: (Score:3)
And are 1 in a million.
Its always a good thing to evaluate large sweeping policies that implicate 8 billion people because of 8000 outliers... /s
Male and Female unchanged, just add Non-binary (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Further, we were talking about trans people when you brought up intersex folks. It's transphobic to assume that all trans people are intersex.
Re: (Score:3)
As for gender or gender identity, there is no scientific basis that either of these actually exist. People have faith in gender and gender identity. All the talk and posturing around these terms is akin to religious belief. Discussions around these topics are inherently unscientific.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
These guys are clearly not trans, they self identify as the same gender they were assigned at birth, and did not pretend to be trans to get in.
How do you know? Gender is a fluid construct (so they say) that changes from moment to moment, and external markers like pronouns do not have to match your identity. The accepted rules for gender are that you cannot judge someone else's current gender ever, for any reason. Your above comment is hateful, bigoted, and violent.
Unless you want to argue the current rules are absurd, in which case welcome to the conservative movement.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Those rules only exist in your head. No real person thinks that it's okay to change your gender purely for gain.
Re:Fluidity (Score:4, Insightful)
Non binary means just that, the individual is not strongly male or female. Trans people are strongly male or female.
The thing is to not get too hung up on it all. People are what they are, they don't need to fit into a neat little category.
Re: (Score:3)
People are what they are, they don't need to fit into a neat little category.
But then how will I know if kissing them will make me gay? /s
Yes Slashdot that's a sarcasm tag at the end. This post was sarcastic.
Re:Fluidity (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreedy heartily!
And the last thing any human should support is categorizing humans by genetalia for access to income producing daily activities which do not rely on sexual dimorphism.
This conference's insistance on specific genetalia with ideological exceptions for self identification in the presence of cross sex genetalia is archaic, patriarchal, inequitable, unfair, and wrong.
Accept everyone or be known as the bigoted, sexist degenerate subhumans you are.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you'll find that this conference was matriarchal, not patriarchal. Otherwise you were correct in that it was archaic, inequitable, unfair, and wrong.
Re:Fluidity (Score:4, Insightful)
Non-binary is a subset of transgender.
No it is not.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This has nothing to do with that. (Score:4, Insightful)
Somehow I don't think "wants a job" counts as "feels like they need to be disruptive".
Re:This has nothing to do with that. (Score:4, Insightful)
A) As if this is the only way for them to get a job.
B) What do you think the odds of a man landing a job at a job fair for women? Probably next to nothing, I know I wouldnt hire someone so keen on disruption and I imagine it would be much the same for recruiters working such an event.
Re:This has nothing to do with that. (Score:4, Interesting)
This has nothing to do with anything you're talking about and everything to do with modern gender non discrimination laws which have been on the books for around a half century.
No. We’ve had sex non-discrimination laws on the books for half a century. All this focus on gender is new as of the past 10 years or so. As everyone these days like to say, gender is separate from sex. We have no federal laws passed which protect gender or gender identity.
Re: (Score:3)
As everyone these days like to say, gender is separate from sex.
Hell, my Con Law professor was saying that in '02, and I'm sure he'd been saying it for years.
We have no federal laws passed which protect gender or gender identity
Strictly speaking, that’s true. But. BHO expanded Title VII by executive order (see, e.g., E.O. 13988), to include “gender identity.” But that was in the wake of the SCOTUS ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County [casetext.com], 590 U.S.—(2020), expanding the statutory term “sex”to include “gender identity” (and sexual orientation). So while technically no federal statutes protect
Re: (Score:3)
The Supreme Court weighed in, and it turns out you're wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Gender may be separate from sex, but that doesn't mean they don't relate to each other, just like sex and sexuality are separate and yet related. If someone was assigned male at birth, and they want to wear a dress because they are transgender and identify as a woman, but their township passes a law saying they can't wear a dress, then that is clearly sex-based discrimination (because you're not letting a 'male' do
Re: (Score:3)
How about the medical term.."Gender Dysmorphia".
And precious few of these guys wearing dresses actually have this medical problem.
From the article (Score:3, Insightful)
FTA: "that some registrants had lied about their gender identity when signing up"
That seems to refute the "self identifying male" part. They identified as female. The organizer of the event thinks they are lying. Their gender is what they say their gender is.
Re:From the article (Score:4, Insightful)
Their gender is what they truly believe their gender to be, not just whatever they say on the day.
If someone turns up in a burka or a turban at the church and says they are a Christian, do you take their word for it or do you expect them to act like that is a genuine belief they hold? Similarly, changing your gender identity comes with certain responsibilities.
You don't get to decide what anyone else "truly believes". They could believe they are a women only in certain contexts, at certain moments. I for example am trans-age and age-fluid, and my age is different depending on the context
I am 70 in the context of social security benefits
I am 21 in the context of dating
I am 16 in the context of selective service.
Re: (Score:3)
Also a good example how you can tell someone isn't sincere. Your age changes depending on how it is advantageous in the moment, never in a way that is detrimental. Considering all the abuse and exclusion that trans people face, it's hard to believe that anyone would claim to be trans and start transitioning just to gain an advantage in a sport they are very likely to be banned from anyway.
A key point. My experience is it's not just insincere, but a need to feel that are angering or upsetting others, even if just for teh laughs. "Owning the libs" is one example of this, although the left can be as guilty of this as the right; I've also found when the tables are turned they get quite upset and offended and play the victim card. I've found the best way to Dela with these types is to ignore them, like any troll the worst response for them is no response because they then don't feel in control
Re:From the article (Score:5, Insightful)
Being gender fluid is a real thing, and of course acceptable if it is genuine. None of these guys appear to be gender fluid though, and did not even claim that on the application.
The term "agefluid" is a 4chan conspiracy theory, which claimed that the "+" in LGBTQ+ refers to paedophiles who believe that they can identify as children in order to perpetrate child abuse. As your example shows, it's not really a thing or a movement with any significant support, just an attempt by internet trolls to discredit LGBTQ people.
Also a good example how you can tell someone isn't sincere. Your age changes depending on how it is advantageous in the moment, never in a way that is detrimental. Considering all the abuse and exclusion that trans people face, it's hard to believe that anyone would claim to be trans and start transitioning just to gain an advantage in a sport they are very likely to be banned from anyway.
If you believe in trans-gender you must also believe in trans-age, trans-race, and trans species. They are all equally nonsense or equally valid. Either I am whatever I identify as or I am not, and it doesn't matter how it manifests outwardly or how often it changes. No one has the right to decide whether or not my identity is valid or sincere.
"Gender-fluid" to me is a meaningless term that exhibits a confusion between the terms male/female and masculine/feminine.
Male and female are biological terms. You will live and die as the biology you were born with, and nothing can change that.
Masculine and feminine though are a set of characteristics and behaviors associated with males and females that vary by culture and era. A feminine male is still a male, and a masculine female is still a female. People are generally a mix of both. I am a man living in my masculine when racing motorcycles, and I am in my feminine when braiding my daughters' hair and role-playing with them.
Some people think this notion of "gender fluidity" is liberating but it's really a trap. It implies that only males can be masculine, and a male living in his feminine is actually a female. Is that a position you really want to promote and defend? That boys must always like sports and girls must always like dolls?
Re: (Score:3)
In case of a church it may be relevant what religion they belong to, but care to explain to me why it's important for a job what gender they have, don't have, want to have or identify as?
I want to work with them. Not fuck them.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not even relevant in church.
Most places of worship will welcome "non believers", and are hoping to teach them about their religion or even try to convert them.
Re:Fluidity (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Well as pointed out in the summary, making the conference female-only would violate anti discrimination laws.
Re: (Score:3)
Discrimination is illegal because discrimination is wrong. Discrimination against men for being men is both wrong and illegal. Protesting such discrimination is the right thing to do.
If this conference was for men only, and women overran it, we would be cheering them for it. That door swings both ways.
Re:Fluidity (Score:5, Insightful)
If you claim yourself non binary, then does that mean you lose the right to look and act as a binary gender?
There are some people who claim to be "gender fluid" and will look and act however they want to at any given time or situation.
Re: (Score:3)
It's all about being sincere.
I think that a lot of people here want social interactions to be proscribed completely by a set of precise rules. And half of them want that so they can find loopholes and "well actually" their way into being legally sleazy.
They don't seem to realize this is not the case, which you can tell by the blizzard of "well akshually" rules lawyering around a set of rules which exist on in their heads.
Re:Fluidity (Score:5, Informative)
We never called it communism. That was just some dimwits' codeword for "stuff I don't like".
It's the redneck equivalent of a 13 year old's use of the word "gay".
Re:Fluidity (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the obvious answer is no. Many events are geared towards addressing the needs of a particular demographic, be it gender, age, political or religious or sports persuasion, medical need, and the list is very long.
And to me, that's the conundrum. Either we accept that groups have a right to focus on a goal by excluding certain people, recognizing that is how racial discrimination happens, or we decide that exclusion is too easily abused, recognizing that's inconsistent with having programs to aid historically marginalized groups. We can try for a third way, allowing exclusion for the right reasons but not bad ones, but that's incredibly difficult. We'd have to define which groups have been historically powerful and we're OK excluding them. But it's problematic: who decides who's in the power group and how do we know we'll end the exclusion when it's no longer necessary? How do we know when that exclusion is legitimate and when is it a cover story for nefarious motives?
Personally, I'd not be a jerk about things. I would be unwelcome at this conference and I don't see a need to attend when there re plenty of other venues. But I'm not out of work and anxious about my next rent payment. It also sounds eerily close to "separate but equal" and we saw how that was used.
Honestly, if I were to get all activist about things, I'd want to spool up similar conferences to boost male participation in careers currently dominated by women: primary education, nursing, HR, child care, and so forth. We don't see those for any number of reasons. Perhaps it's as important to convince society men can and should be teachers as it is to convince society women can and should be engineers.
Please, define... (Score:4, Funny)
Please define the terms "men" and "women" - I'm not a biologist. [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
IN 99% of people its easy.
XY chromosomes and an external pee-pee = Man.
XX chromosomes and an internal pee-pee = Woman.
Until the past 5 years or so...that was pretty much universally "a given".
Re: (Score:3)
IN 99% of people its easy.
And what should the judge do with the other 1%? Just say "fuck 'em"?
We're talking about a judge and equal protection for all under the law. Seriously what do you propose.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just to FYI this...
0.5% are transsexual
3.5% are bisexual (to varying degrees)
3% are homosexual (also to varying degrees- I've known homosexual dads)
That number is *up* from the past when it was about 4% and transsexuals' were not even broken out. Of course, in that past time we also saw homosexuals, transsexuals, and bisexuals beaten and murdered as well as outcast by friends and family. Sooo I think the number in the past the percentages didn't reflect the real reality. I mean look at all the anti-gay c
Re: (Score:3)
Also, doctors almost *randomly* assign gender to babies with ambiguous gender at the same time they cut off tails
lol that's not a thing. [goes to google]. AAaaAAaaaaa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, in recent past years....say 5 maybe even 10 years ago...it still wasn't hard.
On sight for 99% of people you run into you could tell if they were a man or a woman on sight.
Until recent years, this was not rocket surgery.
Why are people making something so simple and common sense into a conun
Re:Please, define... (Score:5, Insightful)
I love how some people feel so horribly put upon by the small minority of people for who gender is a harder issue. If you're not sure whether it's a ma'am or a sir just dont refer to them as either, it's incredibly easy to do. If you feel some one IDs as one gender or the other it's perfectly fine to go with that but if corrected simply give a sincere apology and switch to whatever they prefer. Basically, just dont be a jerk about it. Problem solved.
It's basically the same thing most of us have been doing since forever with Christmas. If it turns out the person you just wished a merry Christmas to is Jewish then "Well then I hope you have a great Hanuka". If they happen to be from a faith that doesnt have a major holiday during the Christmas season then you just switch to commiserating with them over crowds and closed stores the day of. Basically, just dont be a jerk about it. Problem solved.
Re:Please, define... (Score:5, Funny)
On one hand she's not wrong, but (Score:4, Insightful)
If men are this desperate for jobs then what's that say about the whole system?
It says men and women need to join forces against the real enemy, the system that requires everyone to have a job to survive while also providing motivation to reduce the number of jobs in order to maximize profit... and the ultra-wealthy men who profit from it.
This whole "don't come here to take our jobs" mentality misses the point big time whether you're talking about a jobs fair for women, or the H1B program, or whatever else might be the argument of the day. The ruling class is running off with all the profit while the rest of us do all the work, and therefore it becomes necessary for us to fight over their table scraps... which is exactly what's happening here. Men and women fighting over a dwindling resource. Hey women, that man took your cookie, say the CEOs and boards and investors running off with dozens or hundreds of cookies.
Re:On one hand she's not wrong, but (Score:4, Insightful)
No, your comment is a flamebait, the actual news here is that men are finally getting fed with all of this discrimination nonsense. Job fairs are nothing new and they have existed in the past and will exist in the future. What hasn't existed in the past is this blatant discrimination where 50% of the population can be legally excluded from seeking employment and the so called 'progressives' and various types on the left are now stuck in this untenable position of cheering *for* discrimination. Men are finding loopholes in this and they are right to do it.
Also of-course by the very idiotic rules that now make it politically impossible to declare what a woman is [politico.com], anything and anyone can be a woman and you cannot refute it, if I feel like a woman, I am a woman, done.
Re:On one hand she's not wrong, but (Score:5, Insightful)
No, your comment is a flamebait, the actual news here is that men are finally getting fed with all of this discrimination nonsense.
While it’s mainstream to view it as ok because men are already given too many unfair advantages that breaks down with the slightest inspection. While it’s true men on average are afforded things like being listened to, all of the important things are basic human rights and the common decency everyone should be shown until proven otherwise and no one should ever feel guilty for having in the first place. The few toxic things, like dominance issues and power imbalance abuses are perpetrated by a very small minority like 10% or even under 1%. Yet all men suffer as a result while the majority of men would be fine with getting rid of these things because they don’t participate or like them either. Quite often there is a blind spot for class awareness and it gets blamed on a particular sex instead, Joe pumping gas down the block isn’t the one with his patriarchal boot on our necks. Accountability needs to happen but it needs to be precise and individualized because when you aren’t the damage done is exactly the kind that perpetuates the very problems trying to be solved.
Re: (Score:3)
this blatant discrimination where 50% of the population can be legally excluded from seeking employment
Did you not read the summary?
"it cannot ban men from attending due to federal nondiscrimination protections in the US."
Re:On one hand she's not wrong, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, there's more to it than that.
You now have this "diversity" and "equity" thing in the mix, where to get better DEI...if you have a male resume, it gets put straight into the circular bin in favor of any other checkbox class.
Here it looks like regular men, are just using the system to game it....just claim you're non-binary, and if they pass you over..sue the shit outta them.
Basically same game other sides have been taking....and now that they say you cannot define "man" or "woman"...well, they really can't hold that against you now, can they?
Women have done this to themselves...
Re:On one hand she's not wrong, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Not so, unless you are assuming that equal numbers of women APPLY for these jobs or train for them...which numbers today still show that they do not.
What you see today is more proportionate of the number of women who study IT and apply for IT jobs.
Re:On one hand she's not wrong, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure I understand (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a world of difference between holding an event where women are actively encouraged to consider roles in tech and a recruitment event that try’s to exclude a particular group of people. If anything l think the men that turned up were using their imitative to try and get a job.
The ONLY criteria that recruitment should be based on is ability to do the job, if there are too few women with the required experience or qualifications that is not fixed by excluding men from access to recruiters, it is fixed by getting more girls in school taking appropriate subjects and for career advisers to actively promote tech careers to girls. Once people are adults it is too late to change the balance.
Re:Not sure I understand (Score:4, Insightful)
While I understand that women are underrepresented in tech jobs for a variety of reasons, There would be outcry if there was a similar recruitment event aimed at men, so why is it acceptable to have one for women?
because they are underrepresented, and because of those reasons.
If there is some field that is underrepresented by men, I'm sure it'd welcome similar recruitment.
Also, the tech environment can be incredibly hostile towards women, as various comments on this article will no doubt be evidence of.
Want to risk being called a paedophile (Score:3)
It's SO much easier to give jobs like that a pass than to risk an allegation from a child that you've confronted over something. Many decades ago I got called racist by a nasty little minx when I told her off. Fortunately there were plenty of witnesses to disprove it so there wasn't a problem...
Re:Not sure I understand (Score:5, Insightful)
> There would be outcry if there was a similar recruitment event aimed at men, so why is it acceptable to have one for women?
Duh! Because woman are a marked minority in tech. There's no need to have such a show for men - for men it's called "normal life".
In just about all male dominated fields, some proportion of women who try it, or are in it long term experience some level of discrimination, abuse, sexual misconduct or misogyny. Funnily enough, those women don't think "I'll just tough it out because the only criteria should be based on ability". They look at their situation, realise that it's largely futile and decide to switch to some other career. This is one of the many reasons tech is so heavily male dominated today.
If this is hard to understand because you've never lived it, then I'll throw an scenario at you. Imagine you're at a job, which starts out great and all is well. After a time though, you find that in meetings when you suggest an idea or improvement you're not really listened to, or outwardly belittled for your contribution. Meanwhile, one of your colleagues offers some inferior idea, and is praised for it openly, and perhaps gets promotions or bonuses on the back of his amazing contributions. How would you feel about that? Would you perhaps think about leaving to go somewhere else?
The hard part for men to understand is anything with a sexual angle. Imagine if you had all the above, but also people kept trying to look up your skirt or down your top, or commenting about your body or looks or how you're "nice, but not my type" or worse pretty constantly. Even if no one ever talked about you, but commented about other women that walk by or were in the news or whatever - then frankly I can't imagine why anyone would want to put up with it. Again, these are the reasons women need "safe spaces" to think about working in tech - if nothing else, they can keep each other away from the pervy letches that seem to lurk in most male dominated areas.
Just to cover this last point off, for anyone saying "we're not all like that". That's true, but we are all at fault for it. If you're "not like that", then you need to tell anyone else who is "like that" that what they're doing is unacceptable. You need to be actively calling it out and making it stop. If you aren't doing so, then yes, you are "like that" I'm afraid.
Re:Not sure I understand (Score:4, Insightful)
Imagine you're at a job, which starts out great and all is well. After a time though, you find that in meetings when you suggest an idea or improvement you're not really listened to, or outwardly belittled for your contribution. Meanwhile, one of your colleagues offers some inferior idea, and is praised for it openly, and perhaps gets promotions or bonuses on the back of his amazing contributions.
This happens, it's called favoritism and it often has nothing to do with gender, and even when it does sometimes gender favoritism benefits women too.
The hard part for men to understand is anything with a sexual angle. Imagine if you had all the above, but also people kept trying to look up your skirt or down your top, or commenting about your body or looks or how you're "nice, but not my type" or worse pretty constantly
Men face these kind of comments too.
Just to cover this last point off, for anyone saying "we're not all like that". That's true, but we are all at fault for it. If you're "not like that", then you need to tell anyone else who is "like that" that what they're doing is unacceptable. You need to be actively calling it out and making it stop. If you aren't doing so, then yes, you are "like that" I'm afraid.
People naturally don't want to get involved in things which do not directly affect them. If you do that, you will be often branded a troublemaker and face discrimination yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
Where is the job fair (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyone should be able to do any job they want without fear of discrimination and bias. But just because there are fewer women in tech (or fewer men in nursing) doesn't necessarily mean there is bias and discrimination. Due to societal, cultural, and historical factors some careers are just more popular with some people than with others. Having a 50 / 50 (or 45 / 45
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where are the school openings for anyone in nursing?
There are literally not enough openings in nursing schools to meet demand.
The vast majority of applicants to these programs are female.
Men have more career opportunities than do women, because not only can they get hired for all of the same jobs as women (male nurses are attractive as diversity hires, and also, because nurses often have to do hard work like moving corpulent patients) but they can also get hired for jobs where they traditionally don't want
AMA with modpoints (Score:2)
Who is it that's trying to hide the fact that our medical professional shortage is real and deliberately caused? Are you a member of the AMA or what?
Re: (Score:3)
Go away.
Re: (Score:3)
That's exactly the question that was posed in the Journal of Nursing. A link to the article is below.
https://rn-journal.com/journal-of-nursing/time-to-recruit-more-men-into-the-profession-of-nursing [rn-journal.com]
Any more questions?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fuck off, Troll.
You don't care about men in nursing, you're just concern trolling.
1 second of googling shows you're full of shit.
https://www.england.nhs.uk/201... [england.nhs.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
We have had multiple programmes to get more men into traditionally female dominated jobs, such as nursing, teaching at primary level, child/elderly care and so on. In the UK they usually take the form of free money for men who get qualified in those areas. Serious cash too, not peanuts.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm glad you asked!
The annual meeting of the American Association for Men in Nursing is in 2 weeks!
I think you can still register!
https://www.aamn.org/2023-annu... [aamn.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Having a gendered approach to consider what careers are available to you is wrong. I am also not supportive of specific-gender-only events or services. Why can my daughter get free summer STEM camps but my son cannot? He likes STEM just as much as she does. And, statistically, she is more likely to attend and graduate from college than he is.
Reality of choice (Score:4, Insightful)
The simple reality is that the current social and political climate has established the scenario where gender is one's choice, rather than an immutable trait.
For better or for worse the result of that is that any event, group, club, etc that seeks to represent one gender over another will be open to anyone joining because you can't just lift up the proverbial skirt and check anymore - it's all about feelings that can't be confirmed.
It'd be like hosting a conference for Dallas Cowboys fans and then complaining that people are wearing Atlanta Falcons merchandise. Its questionable but you still can't prove that they're not a Cowboys fan.
And honestly I don't see this pushing for gender as a choice as being good for people with medically confirmed sexual dysmorphia. If you are merely born a certain way - eg you're born as a member of a race, or with a hair color etc. Or even with sexual dysmorphia - then that's an immutable trait that one can't change, and criticism or ostracization is wrong and unfair. However in the case of most non-binary or gender fluid persons who are going the route of insisting that gender is a choice: choices are generally open to criticism. "I hate meat eaters" is a morally different statement to "I hate short people.", because one is a choice and the other is not.
Gender is not a choice (Score:3)
I find the most interesting fact is that men & women do have slightly different brains, and while that doesn't affect performance it does show up in a variety of brain scans.
When trans men & women are scanned their brains appear to be of the sex they identify with, not the one assigned at birth. Moreover when homosexual men and women's brains are scanned their brains appear to be the sex they were assigned at birth. So
Non-male? (Score:2)
holy sexist (Score:5, Insightful)
Past iterations of the conference have "always felt safe and loving and embracing," said Bo Young Lee, president of advisory at AnitaB.org, in a LinkedIn post. "And this year, I must admit, I didn't feel this way."
--
What? WHAT!! Men being around, makes people feel unsafe? What a horrible, sexist thing to say. And I mean that legitimately.
Yes, some men are criminals, that does not mean ALL men are criminals, and women murder, rape, kill, maim too!
What a sexist ideal!
Frankly, I have zero sympathy. If you reverse the roles, and it feels wrong, then it's wrong! Now imagine a men only job fair! Or men complaining about "all these horrible women around, this is a male only job fair".
What a horribly sexist, discriminatory tthng to do! You know, women aren't fragile little flowers that need coddling and are incapable of success. The women I know are reasonably strong willed, able to compete for positions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Past iterations of the conference have "always felt safe and loving and embracing," said Bo Young Lee, president of advisory at AnitaB.org, in a LinkedIn post. "And this year, I must admit, I didn't feel this way."
--
What? WHAT!! Men being around, makes people feel unsafe? What a horrible, sexist thing to say. And I mean that legitimately.
Yes, some men are criminals, that does not mean ALL men are criminals, and women murder, rape, kill, maim too!
What a sexist ideal!
Surely you recognize the difference between an open event with a large of men and an women-only event that has been overrun by men who largely must have realized they weren't supposed to be there and showed up anyway.
Yes, I can understand why those women felt unsafe around that group of men in that specific context.
Frankly, I have zero sympathy. If you reverse the roles, and it feels wrong, then it's wrong! Now imagine a men only job fair! Or men complaining about "all these horrible women around, this is a male only job fair".
What a horribly sexist, discriminatory tthng to do! You know, women aren't fragile little flowers that need coddling and are incapable of success. The women I know are reasonably strong willed, able to compete for positions.
A male only job fair, so pretty much every other tech event?
When X is the characteristic that benefits from discrimination then an X-only requirement is bad because it furthers that discriminatio
Um... yeah. (Score:3)
Men can and will hit on anything with a pulse anywhere they are. For a lot of guys dating is about "Drop enough bombs and you're bound to hit something". And that gets exhausting for women.
The roles don't reverse because that's just not how our species works. Men are much, much, *much* more aggressive at seeking mates, and will do it literally anywh
Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
"All of those are limited resources to which you have no right," White said.
But remember:
noted it cannot ban men from attending due to federal nondiscrimination protections in the US
Which is another way of saying "they had every right". (What do you think a "federal nondiscrimination protection" is other than a right?)
What she did was hope that she could discriminate under the table by implying it was women-only when she knows very well that being women-only isn't permitted. Then she got upset when she wasn't able to discriminate in a way she was not permitted to do anyway.
What next, a Slashdot headline "black people overrun a whites-only job fair"?
Re: (Score:3)
This is exactly what they said about women voting, black kids going to public school, and so many other situations of discrimination.
Either we're all equal, or we're not.
EEOC, it's illegal to discriminate on gender (Score:5, Insightful)
https://www.eeoc.gov/prohibite... [eeoc.gov]
"Under the laws enforced by EEOC, it is illegal to discriminate against someone (applicant or employee) because of that person's race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to retaliate against a person because he or she complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.
The law forbids discrimination in every aspect of employment."
These fairs were illegal from the start.
It's just BS (Score:5, Insightful)
We have now a conference for only women that can't legally prohibit men from attending due to Federal law. A large number of men attend causing much wailing and wringing of hands over those men attending.
Now imagine a different conference intended for only men, but due to Federal law they can't prohibit women from attending.... FULL STOP. If such a conference were planned, there would be an immediate outcry about the organizers of that conference daring to even contemplate such an outrage. There would be no worries about women attending since the conference would never be allowed to exist in the first place.
Why the completely separate treatment of two different conferences that are identical except for which gender is desired and which is not?
Frankly, all that those men were doing was illustrating the hypocrisy of current society. No more and no less.
What's that quote? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They aren't opposites, and your dichotomy is false. If you aspire to equality when things are unequal, one side may (and probably will) need special treatment.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
People are downvoting you because you're making blatantly toxic and untrue statements. A lot of the guys there were literally just cisgender dudes who just wanted a job and showed up anyway. This isn't about oppressing the alphabet, it's about a minute range of opportunities focused on lifting up women that are being railroaded by guys. And I think it's wildly hypocritical of you to focus so heavily on the oppression of alphabet folks but completely miss the oppression of women that's occurring and is THE ACTUAL POINT of the outrage.
Wow, what a bigoted comment. You have no right to declare that these individuals are "literally just cisgender dudes". They were whatever they identified as at that moment in time.
Re: (Score:3)
You say "It disturbs me how much society is dumping on poor young men in an effort to reign in the abuses of the top 2% of men"
That's very insightful. It's disheartening to see blanket statements like "men are advantaged over women". Is it true that men are advantaged over women "on average"? I can't speak from incontrovertible evidence, but I strongly believe this is true and is a reasonable justification for some kind of accommodation. But in any particular case, is a specific man advantaged over a specif