I honestly don’t understand. What does define the sex biologically? The genitalia, then? I always understood positions like William’s like “XY is the biologically male sex by definition, if the human develops female genitalia and feels like a woman they were biologically speaking still intended to be a man.” I don’t understand what else there could be on an elemental level to biologically determine the sex.

Man, what a peace-loving guy! Damn Ukraine for not stopping the war! >:/

I do, but I don’t think it can be eliminated in any economic system. But the best approach to try to in capitalism would be to provide equal opportunities to everyone and promoting a society where this concept is considered a virtue, not artificially steering or even inhibiting career trends.

By the way, this isn’t a discussion about compensation and overcompensation anymore. While compensation can be compared to E. o. Opportunity under those aspects, overcompensation can not be compared to E. o. Outcome in the same manner. The topic moved into a way more economic territitory than my initial statement intended to cover.

Edit: Btw, appreciate talking to you :)

I somewhat agree, but note that the inferiority you are describing is always only a relative measurement within the ruling system of economy, not necessarily some kind of (seemingly detached) moral measure which the connotation may imply.

That being said, I tend to the second option, acknowledging that capitalism, besides every other form of economy, is more of a challenge to some individuals than to others. But my initial statement persists.

When believing in Equality of Outcome, I think they are pretty sound solutions, aren’t they? But I for one am not.

This implies that empathy is the number one reason for employment across the board, I doubt that is true.

You will also end up with people obtaining jobs and never knowing whether they did because they were skilled and convincing or because of their DEI-relevant attributes, to which they will now even be reduced to by law.

Good point, but I stand by my statement, because the problem persists, even if there is a large potential to compensate.

There often is this idea of overcompensating for the inequalities experienced by one side in the past. While being a fundamentally plausible thought, this idea will never work because who is to decide and uphold the rules for that like when to stop it or how much to overcompensate. The more realistic and less patronizing approach is to always strive for a good world to live in by learning from the past and not trying to correct it.

Breaking news, really. The dude who threatens to invade his allies is a threat to peace, bravo! If we keep up this pace with dealing with the situation, then we are doomed.

Weird, what happened to ending the war within one day?