Here, you can start an "ask a tall engineer" page with some comments from me: office chairs are too small and I have to shift posture constantly; communal desks are too low; and there's nowhere high enough to try a standing desk.
I was curious on the importance of defining the individual as female , but leaving other non engineering characteristics out?
Because your original comment wasn't innocent or genuine, and you already know the answer to it. It's a comment that gets made every. single. time. something like this comes up, has been answered a million times before, and it's not worth pandering to.
Stop it already: point is it should be OK for anyone to start any group they want but some are bound to be more interesting than others.
You are starting to annoy even me and I'm definitely a non-"SJW". (although I do care and will sometimes make an effort to fix things, just not in a "SJW" style blame-society-and-all-white-men way)
So according to you the point is that it should be OK for anyone to start any group they want , however its not ok to ask any question.
On a good note despite your hypocrisy on allowing any subject to be created while controlling the questions that can be asked, you atleast have been consistent.
You have been consistent in making personal attacks and dodging the questions on the value of stating "Female" engineer. Good job!
I never said it was wrong to start the thread with that title, I just questioned the purpose or value to include female the in title.
> I really don't see the importance of sex in relations to engineering
that expression is too vague to really say anything about. there exist "minority groups" in various fields (such as "male nurses"), and said groups sometimes have distinct life experiences and insights as a result, including their relationship with the "majority group".
> Or perhaps explain why the following characteristics are irrelevant or less important when it comes to engineering
this seems non-sequitur or a strawman. the mere existence of "ask a female engineer" does not necessarily imply anything about other potential "ask a _ engineer" q&a's.
The same goes for "Ask a Female Engineer" hence I wanted more information about other non engineering characteristics such as her height,weight, color, height, etc.
"this seems non-sequitur or a strawman"
Its not a strawman it was a valid question , why did she only decide to single out her sex. Why not disclose her weight,height,color,etc?
non-sequitur. it's a q&a with a particular segment of individuals. if you're not interested in the experiences and insights of a segment of the workforce, you don't have to ask anything.
however, asking about "the importance of sex in relations to engineering" requires explanation of what you mean by "importance" and "engineering". otherwise it's a bit of a weaselly question.
> Its not a strawman
you said: "explain why the following characteristics are irrelevant". nobody said they were.
> why did she only decide to single out her sex
did you not even look at the link? even the first paragraph? there isn't a "she" who "decided to single out her sex". it's a content publisher/blog (?) that took questions and then posited them to a group of female engineers.
it's not, because it's unclear, and i demonstrated why it's unclear. you refuse to clarify.
"important" in what way? the mechanical exercise of job functions? individual qualia? cultural aspects? something else?
"to engineering" in what way? the position requirements of a job? the industry economics? the workforce as a body of humans? the state of the art? social climate?
this is what i mean - it's not immediately clear what you're asking, so any answer is dismissable.
> versus stating other non engineering characteristics
what is an "engineering characteristic"?
> what is the value of stating they are female when not all females are the same
there is no "value" in "stating they are female". it's a statement of fact. so, the question is unclear. you also haven't explained why the notion of "not all females are the same" implies anything about a so-called "value of stating they are female".
> nor do they automatically have the same experiences simply because of their sex
"experience" isn't a fixed unary number. it's a manifold of many things. it's a trivially true observation that two individuals will have individual experiences of life. this says nothing of overlapping or commonality.
There is no value or purpose added by stating you are female in the title. Clearly all females don’t think alike or have the same experiences.
There is nothing wrong with asking why was "Female" added to the title , but not other characteristics such as height,weight,age,color,weight, etc.
The stuff you mentioned should probably be a separate conversion, but I do think there is probably overlap with the gender issue.
Its not about just technical ability, but social and economic power through jobs.
Because you're challenging the feminist manifesto.
Or perhaps explain why the following characteristics are irrelevant or less important when it comes to engineering:
fat,skinny,tall,short,ugly,pretty , white,or black?