I'm glad you support it for women, but I'm not sure what the "different in significant ways" thing means in relation to it. Almost everything thinks men and women are different in ways.
No. Most Black people don't want racial preferences (https://www.vox.com/2019/5/9/18538216/diversity-workplace-pe...). And I've come around to believing that the patronage of progressive whites is ultimately harmful to minorities. The fact is that they don't really know what causes structural poverty and don't have more than theories on how to fix it. If I was in their shoes, I wouldn't want to be a guinea pig for progressive social engineering.
> You could coherently support affirmative action for Black people while not accepting a complicated hierarchy of grievances (which: most people outside of Twitter and nonprofits don't).
Oh, it's spread way beyond that already. If it was just internecine fights at progressive non-profits I'd be amused by it, not worried.
> I'm glad you support it for women, but I'm not sure what the "different in significant ways" thing means in relation to it.
Sex is a different kind of difference than race. Designing office buildings to have separate bathrooms for men and women is an accommodation to biology; retooling promotion tracks to accommodate balancing motherhood and career progression is similar. But having separate bathrooms for different races is a different story! Women, moreover, are not a minority and are not socially isolated from the dominant group. If social engineering directed at sex has negative consequences, it will quickly become apparent to decision makers in the dominant group. Not so with social engineering directed at race. Most white progressives will never have to deal with the consequences of the policies they espouse.
I still support it for women because, get this, I think men and women are different in significant and meaningful ways.