News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:64 and unemployed: One man's struggle to be taken serious... by snotrockets on Tuesday January 29, 2019 @06:56PM (#19031168)
Fairness in opportunities, which you just disqualified by assuming the best Dr need to be a MALE and GENTICALY PREDETERMINED SMART.

My (short) experience working in health care suggest both are very bad qualifications for a health professional.

Re:64 and unemployed: One man's struggle to be taken serious... by ericb on Tuesday January 29, 2019 @09:15PM (#19032013)
So, first off, fair point for calling out that I said "guy." I tried to edit it once I saw my mistake, but the post was locked.

I'm curious, though, why you would not want someone who was genetically smart? Why would you want a "dumb" healthcare professional treating you? Do you not believe intelligence to be related to genetics?

Also, how does being male make one a worse healthcare professional?

If you are saying you want fairness in opportunities, then isn't discriminating on the basis of someone being male the opposite of fairness?

Re:64 and unemployed: One man's struggle to be taken serious... by burfog on Wednesday January 30, 2019 @02:55AM (#19033430)
To be coldly rational, you want to pick from the group that is the most discriminated against for entry into medical school. Right now in the USA, that would be Asian males.

An exception is if you may need the doctor to insert a hand into your body. In this case, note that Asian female doctors generally have the smallest hands.

An exception is if you are very heavy and might require feats of strength for your care. In this case, young non-Asian males are most likely to have the needed strength.