Is it possible to make an argument to those ends without being accused of being a racist/sexist/etc in your mind? Is there any way that someone could convince you that they were sincere?

> oh it will not align with the character of our neighborhood

Is there no situation where this is obviously, trivially true? If someone wants to replace a traditional cottage in the middle of an Irish village with a glass and steel modernist masterpiece, would you accept the argument then?

Probably not; I suspect that gumby would say that the position is inherently sexist, no matter how sincerely held.

I read the memo as sincerely asking whether the data showed a sexist conclusion. Either it is inherently sexist to ask the question, or it isn't. If it is, then... what? Is it inherently sexist to note that men are faster than women? (Yes, I am aware that there are 12-year-old girls who can beat me in the 100 meters. No, that doesn't invalidate my point.) Then is reality sexist? Or is it only sexist to notice? Or to admit that you noticed?

If it isn't inherently sexist to ask the question, then we start into judgment on whether he asked it in good faith. That's a different question, on which I will not pass judgment. But I suspect that what's happening is that people have decided that it is sexist to ask the question, and therefore he couldn't have asked it in good faith.

I agree that many people seem to find asking a question in the first place to be inherently * ist. Personally, I think that by refusing to ask questions we make it impossible to find better solutions and leave openings for other belief systems to thrive. (If the only people explaining a difference are the Nazis because everyone else says there's no difference, well then anyone who goes looking for the cause is going to find what the Nazis what you to find. Easier to twist a narrative when you don't have any competition)

I think to some degree what is being argued is that a genuinely sincere concern along this line relies on assumptions perpetuate social inequality and continued oppression of humans. It is similar to a constant suspicion of men around children perpetuates continued discomfort of men to be strong, loving, present father figures to their children whom they genuinely care for, and from this a concern based on assumptions harms the family structure overall.

Perhaps - but if every time that someone argues in an unapproved direction they're called a * ist, it's irritating to tell the difference between someone genuinely trying to help and Richard Spencer.

And anything that says * ism might be a smaller problem than thought, that * ism is getting better, or that our current efforts to reduce * ism are ineffective... Well, that's an unapproved direction.

Also, if I know there's no way to convince someone of something, I'm generally going to stop caring about what they think. (Because it's always going to be the same, and nothing I can do will change that)

I agree but I simultaneously find this rhetoric difficult because it also means that people who are actively being targets of bigotry cannot respond to bigoted assumptions with any amount of anger or calling out. It in some ways perpetuates that assumption I mentioned that continues systems of inequality continuing- people who are being delivered unjust outcomes may not even respond in the way a privileged human would if they were forced under the same conditions.

So basically you’re putting words in his mouth and using those to argue he’s sexist?

Pretty much exactly that. I doubt many people here actually bothered to read it for themselves.