>Debating how to fix it is important, but debating whether or not sexism actually exists trivializes the problem in a toxic way
You are walking into an extremely dangerous territory here. If reasonable people can disagree with you on the points you are not willing to debate (such as the widespread existence of sexism in tech[1]) or (worse) that you find morally wrong to debate then those reasonable people will not consider you reasonable - not only do you then lose any chance of changing their perspective, you will also create a schism in the community. This is what has happened in the US over guns, to the point where there is now no hope of reconciliation.
For example I could counter the few well published incident by pointing out that the media cherrypick a few stories and them run with them - what you see in the media is not an unbiased sample. A few stories from a large enough group does not mean that the group is especially sexist, it just means that it has a few assholes in it. We don't know whether the asshole procentage is higher or lower than in the general population and we don't know that if it is higher, whether there is some third-party variable (such as a general disregard for rules) common to both tech people and sexist assholes or whether the causality runs the other way (ie assholes are more likely to be tech guys because they don't work well with people).
Before we bring out the big guns and tear this community (which I highly value) apart, can we please have some independent, unbiased, studies - both as to the extend and effect of sexism and what causes it? Armed with this knowledge, we will be in a much better position to find out how, if at all, we should address this issue.
[1]: There is sexism in any sufficiently large group of people, independent of the field you gather the group from. What is more interesting is how large a percentage of the group is sexist.
One of the ways that people slow down progress, in startups or in society, is by resisting unreasonably at every step in a series of steps in an argument.
If you want to debate that, that's fine, just do it somewhere else. It appears that Y Combinator has accepted the ample evidence of the presence of sexism in tech, and is focusing discussion away from existence, and towards the next necessary steps. Rehashing the evidence of the previous step may be an OK exercise, but it's not the most fruitful step right now.
HN doesn't have to be everything to everybody, it gets to be what it wants to be.
>One of the ways that people slow down progress, in startups or in society, is by resisting unreasonably at every step in a series of steps in an argument.
They key here is _unreasonable_. I do not believe it unreasonable to demand evidence to the extend and nature of sexism in tech (as I have seen no formal study on it at all).
Frankly all I am seeing here are the very methods described in What you can't say being used to silence a debate, because some groups use it to run their own agenda.
>I do not believe it unreasonable to demand evidence to the extend and nature of sexism in tech (as I have seen no formal study on it at all).
I'm trying to not be rude here, but my inclination is to tell you to just go look for such studies or run such a study yourself. Nobody owes you a spoon-fed version of reality on your terms when they make their own decisions.
What is unreasonable is saying that normal business decision practices are not adequate to make this particular decision, and instead a formal, "unbiased" study must be conducted.
The numbers are so extreme that they speak for themselves. Several years of 0% women founders, and now 10%.
There's a double standard for evidence when it comes to sexism (and other cultural issues). Maybe it's because some people take it as a personal affront, as if they're accepting responsibility for the actions of others, and it switches into "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" mode rather than "what's the most likely reality here."
Recently there was a string of articles on Language Log about gender disparities in meetings between men interrupting women and women interrupting men during discussion. A surprisingly large number of comments consisted of men denying the evidence. This type of response is endemic wherever science touches cultural issues. An unbiased scientific study of gender disparity may be useful as a tool for finding where to make corrective steps, but it will convince nearly no one. On issues like this, people stick to their cultural inclinations more than the evidence.
HN has decided to move the conversation forward, and I give them kudos for that.
> I do not believe it unreasonable to demand evidence to the extend and nature of sexism in tech (as I have seen no formal study on it at all).
There have been so many studies, blog posts, and anecdotes about sexism in tech. Basic searching for this stuff will get you all the relevant info you need, nobody is obligated to walk you through it if you aren't aware.
>There have been so many studies, blog posts, and anecdotes about sexism in tech
I am not aware of any studies, otherwise I would have read them. Blog posts and anecdotes - are useful for acting on individual cases of sexism, but because they are, by definition, limited to one or two cases, taken out of the whole, using them as arguments for widespread sexism is wrong (in the sense of incorrect).
You are walking into an extremely dangerous territory here. If reasonable people can disagree with you on the points you are not willing to debate (such as the widespread existence of sexism in tech[1]) or (worse) that you find morally wrong to debate then those reasonable people will not consider you reasonable - not only do you then lose any chance of changing their perspective, you will also create a schism in the community. This is what has happened in the US over guns, to the point where there is now no hope of reconciliation.
For example I could counter the few well published incident by pointing out that the media cherrypick a few stories and them run with them - what you see in the media is not an unbiased sample. A few stories from a large enough group does not mean that the group is especially sexist, it just means that it has a few assholes in it. We don't know whether the asshole procentage is higher or lower than in the general population and we don't know that if it is higher, whether there is some third-party variable (such as a general disregard for rules) common to both tech people and sexist assholes or whether the causality runs the other way (ie assholes are more likely to be tech guys because they don't work well with people).
Before we bring out the big guns and tear this community (which I highly value) apart, can we please have some independent, unbiased, studies - both as to the extend and effect of sexism and what causes it? Armed with this knowledge, we will be in a much better position to find out how, if at all, we should address this issue.
[1]: There is sexism in any sufficiently large group of people, independent of the field you gather the group from. What is more interesting is how large a percentage of the group is sexist.