> an issue that is completely gender neutral

It's not completely gender neutral.

For example, women tend to get more intoxicated than men by the same amount of alcohol.

Also, women tend to be more physically vulnerable than men in situations involving alcohol intoxication, for a number of reasons. (One of which is that the penis tends to be largely non-functional sexually when you're passed out.)

Marcel, you've always emphasized the physical differences between men and women, but you seem to ignore them here?

> There is nothing discriminatory going on.

I have no wish to argue about what discrimination means, but I think you have a rather narrow (and largely useless) interpretation of "completely gender neutral", whereby something can be deemed completely gender neutral regardless of whether it generates a huge difference in outcome by gender. After all, there are always individual differences among members of each gender, so if we have to ignore the averages, then what's left? According to your interpretation, it seems that the only issues that are not completely gender neutral are specifically where men are required to do X and women not-X, which as I said is largely useless for practical discussion (one of the few examples is the US Selective Service, which does discriminate by both gender and age).

The main question to me is not just whether an outcome is actually unequal, the question is whether an outcome is predictably unequal. When someone applies an input, allegedly gender neutral, that they know in advance will produce important gender differences in output, how can they honestly claim that it's completely gender neutral? That's not fooling me, at any rate; it seems more like self-deception.

Let me put it this way: if you wanted to discriminate against a certain class of people, but you needed plausible deniability, then what would you do? You would select arbitrary criteria, allegedly neutral, that play the averages and tend to filter out the undesirables. It's not perfect discrimination, some false positives and negatives, but "better" than nothing, right?

> Just like requiring certain standards of physical fitness for firefighters that more men than women can meet is not discrimination.

This seems like a rather minor issue. It's a special case. I don't think it carries much weight overall, pardon the pun. The economy doesn't seem to be littered with disappointed firefighter wannabes. "I want to be a firefighter" is what children say, not generally what adult women are saying about gender inequality.

Regardless, I don't think it makes much sense to compare physical fitness standards for firefighters and late-night drinking "fitness" for business. Nobody is going to die if you don't drink, though somebody could die if you do drink! Drinking is not even a plausibly reasonable requirement for work.

> I don't emphasise them. But I also don't deny them.

Well, I've known you for years, and I've observed that you constantly go out of your way to argue with strangers on the internet about gender. Of course I'm doing it in this submission, but I can't even begin to match your prolificness, nor do I aspire to. ;-)

Anyway, quibbling aside, the larger issue is that there are often perfectly rational explanations for why women tend to avoid certain employment situations, explanations that have nothing to do with "gender preferences", unless you would claim that "not wanting to get sexually harassed or assaulted" is just a preference.

> I have no wish to argue about what discrimination means

Yet that is exactly what you are doing, and the definition you argue for is almost entirely useless. Your claim is that any activity that can or does produce even statistic differences in outcomes for different genders is discrimination.

This is not true.

Discrimination is when you discriminate, and do so based on gender.

I am not going to rebut what you wrote in detail, it's just wrong.

> perfectly rational explanations for why women tend to avoid certain employment situations

Exactly. And they have nothing to do with "discrimination", but with different people having different preferences, and different societal pressures. For men, having a good job, climbing the top of whatever hierarchy is available is essential if they want to partner up, for example, because that is what women require of their partners.

So men, statistically, do the dangerous and dirty jobs that women would never put up with. And thus account for >90% of workplace casualties. And die earlier in general. And make more money, statistically. And they put up with stupid things like having to go out drinking for work after working hours, after also working more hours in general, more overtime and more inconvenient shifts.

And of course having to go out on drinking contests after work is a, how did I put it, "shitty business practice" that needs to be weeded out. But not because it is discriminatory, which it is not, but because it is a shitty business practice.

And no, I am also not going to rebut crazy conspiracy theories about men banding together to come up with ultra clever and devious business practices that are designed to shut out women while appearing to be gender neutral.

And yes, I do try my best to fight the Dominant Narrative™ on this topic, because it is not just comically wrong, but also divisive and harmful. It does nothing but breed resentment and since its analysis is so wrong ensures that things cannot get better.

But things are improving, the number of people who blindly buy into the narrative seems to be declining. Yay!

Good chat.

> Your claim is that any activity that can or does produce even statistic differences in outcomes for different genders is discrimination.

No, it's not.

> Good chat.

No, it wasn't.

Every "chat" you have seems to end up with some variation of the sarcastic "have a nice one". Don't you ever tire of that outcome?

> I do try my best to fight the Dominant Narrative™ on this topic

It does feel like you're talking to an abstraction (maybe talking to yourself?) rather than talking to me. That would actually explain a lot about how these chats go.

I am not the Dominant Narrative. Neither are you the Lord-selected savior from the Dominant Narrative. We're just two guys talking on the internet. Do you want to have a real discussion, or just pound keys and chests like monkeys?

It's obviously not possible to have a constructive, non-ad-hom discussion here, so I am bowing out.

Have a good one.

> It's obviously not possible to have a constructive, non-ad-hom discussion here

It is possible, but you'd have to radically change your typical approach to these discussions and treat me like an equal human being rather than as a "narrative" to fight.

> so I am bowing out.

I thought you already did.

> Have a good one.

Good chat. Have a nice one. Have a good one. Why did you even need to add the superfluous line to your comment that I've already highlighted as sarcastic?