But the thing is - you can't. Our approach to statistical drug studies is more careful and mathematically sound than studies about our own identities.
There isn't enough evidence in #1 and #2 to jump to #3, and normally outside of sensitive politics absurd like that simply goes ignored, kinda like child speak.
Lemme offer you similarly absurd statement:
Men and women are equal, yet men don't live as long as women do. Therefore, men's quality of life is lower and they are discriminated against.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens
That's not the point. In politics, if you can trick people into believe rubbish X causes trash Y which leads to bullshit Z and make money off it, then that's what you do. Generally, it's best to have a semi-reasonable argument. In the case above, the flaw is in the statement "Men and women are equal", which is obviously not the case. (Nothing is equal to anything, except in pure mathematics.)
Really, saying "men and women are equal" is a moral statement, with built-in failure, like the commands in the sermon on the mount. This leads to built-in transgression. Which leads to guilt. Which leads to submission. And so on.
1. Equality under the law/Equal rights as humans -- the law should treat men and women equally. "It is wrong to punish men more severely for crimes than women."
2. "Societal" equality -- the attitudes and viewpoints of mainstream society should consider men and women to be equal. "It is wrong to believe that women should have children."
3. Statistical equality -- men and women must be statistically identical for a politically useful class of statistics (e.g., intelligence). "Anyone who speculates that women are not as smart as/have different variance/etc is a sexist."
4. Equality of outcome -- men and women should achieve the same outcomes, for a politically useful class of endeavors. "Professors in every field should be 50% male, 50% female."
#1 and #2 are moral questions, #3 is a scientific one. #4 is a consequence of #1,#2 and #3. The moral statements are hardly rubbish, they are perfectly legitimate moral claims (I even agree with #1). The bullshit is trying to claim that 1 == 2 == 3 == 4.
Identity politics. Follow the money. If you can get a person in authority to declare, "We are all equal, given 'fair' conditions," then you have an opportunity to make the following argument:
This is a standard move in identity politics, and you will see it whenever two groups are different. Different people = different outcomes. But the vast bulk of people, including scientists, have been trained from birth to say, "All men [sic] are created equal".Once you decide that society isn't treating a group fairly, it is time to correct that. How? Affirmative action, set-asides, diversity training, repairations, etc.
What's in store:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODU5OTVjNjhhOTY4ZDk2MWY...