FAG

your a fag i go to your school u have no friends

Am I to understand that you believe that the declaration of independence should actually be seen as an historical document advocating equal treatment towards African Americans and Women? That is profound ignorance. It is really hard to take you seriously.
Do you not realize how dramatically the notion of humanity has changed over time? What does a transwoman being allowed to assume a female identity have to do with equality. Freedom perhaps but equality???
In my own province, the government has a sexist zero tolerance policy.
The explicit policy is to only arrest and lay charges against males for intimate partner conflict, violence, or abuse.
As a result of this policy, only males are arrested and prosecuted.
Shelter and support services are only offered to females.

Since I do make these claims, I therefore do not claim or imply that sexism or discrimination does not exist.

Perhaps you use a different definition of sexism or discrimination though.

I do not believe in the equality of human beings as you have advocated. Diversity and equality are only compatible if you have mere token equality, and you therefore can not expect equality of outcomes.

I do no know what you mean by a completely discrimination free society and I am pretty sure that you dont really know either.

Your assumption that human desires and abilities ought to be distributed evenly and randomly if not for the influence of tacit discrimination is pure dogma.

A bigot is not somebody who denies this far fetched theory of the equality of human beings, but somebody who actually has faith in the superiority of their own group.

You have offered the example of a company which claims not to discriminate with respect to gender, but yet has never hired a single woman.
Wouldnt you also be interested to know how many people this company has hired? 5? 20? 100? How many qualified women have applied, were they among the most qualified? How probable should the statistical likelihood of discrimination be before you are satisfied with that as an explanation? And, last but not least, how many companies have you chosen to look for discrimination and failed to find any (cherry picking to make a point changes the significance of those odds dramatically)? If you have looked at 100 companies then you should expect that by chance alone, one of those companies will appear to be discriminating with a likelihood of 99%. Yes I do believe in coincidences, unlike most conspiracy theorists it would seem.

Of course it is possible for discrimination to still exist despite publicly announced policy and ideology. If you pay close attention to what I say, you will notice that I have not contradicted that. In fact, I even said that I believe that hidden discrimination exists.
It is also possible for a person to get away with murder, and for a large number of people to get away with a massive conspiracy.
Pretty much anything is at least possible, and you wont get very far by denying that something is possible, or by straw manning someone else to make it look like they are.
We both agree that hidden discrimination is real and at least possible.
But we appear to disagree on how it should be gauged in a responsible and honest way.

I sent you the Richard Dawkins video because of what Richard Dawkins has to say about womens studies vs true feminism. I figured that you would not be tempted to write Dawkins off as a misogynist, since he is actually very knowledgeable about the breeding grounds of superstition, ignorance, and hostility towards reason and science.
I also thought that Bill Maher was right on about masculine vs feminine values.

Why do you claim to speak for "the rest of us"? Do you use this tactic often?
What do you mean by "self identified" and how is that relevant?
I believe that hidden discrimination exists, but that it can not be easily guaged, and it is never a group that is discriminated against, it is only those specific individuals in the group. Any individual belonging to any group be either helped or hurt by some sort of unfair discrimination, but only overt discrimination that is announced as policy or justified by ideology that can actually be known.
You can not just deduce the presence or degree of discrimination from inequality of outcome because society is so complex and people are free to have a wide variety of desires and life choices, (and with sex differences there are clear and significant biological differences)

I do actually make sense, to myself at least.
But if you want to understand me better, just know that I consider myself to be a libertarian, an individualist, and an atheist.
I believe in freedom of speech, honesty, truth, reason, objectivity, and science.
I hate lies as much as I hate violence.
I love to argue, and I am very direct.
I am a student of both Philosophy and Psychology.
I want equality of opportunity (formal), not equality of outcome (substantive).
If you want to understand my worldview better, read Karl Poppers short essay Science as Falsification
I normally agree with Penn and Tellers show "Bullshit" and with Daniel Dennet, and Christopher Hitchens.