Larks, I think you’re conflating 2 different things:
1) discussing whether something closer to gender parity (I think that’s a more precise word than ‘diversity’ in this context) is desirable at all,
versus
2) discussing whether some particular step to promote it is worth the cost.
It’s only the EDIT: first (original wrote second, sorry) that the post says its not focused on.
This is quite important because finding ‘closer to gender parity is better, all things being equal’ “controversial” is quite different from finding the claim that some specific level of prioritization of gender parity or some particular argument for why it is good is controversial. It’s hard to tell which you are saying is “controversial” and it really effects how strongly anti-feminist what you are saying is.
Though in fairness, it is certainly hard to discuss whether any individual proposal is worth (alleged) costs, without getting into how much value to place on gender parity relative to other things.
Larks, I think you’re conflating 2 different things:
1) discussing whether something closer to gender parity (I think that’s a more precise word than ‘diversity’ in this context) is desirable at all,
versus
2) discussing whether some particular step to promote it is worth the cost.
It’s only the EDIT: first (original wrote second, sorry) that the post says its not focused on.
This is quite important because finding ‘closer to gender parity is better, all things being equal’ “controversial” is quite different from finding the claim that some specific level of prioritization of gender parity or some particular argument for why it is good is controversial. It’s hard to tell which you are saying is “controversial” and it really effects how strongly anti-feminist what you are saying is.
Though in fairness, it is certainly hard to discuss whether any individual proposal is worth (alleged) costs, without getting into how much value to place on gender parity relative to other things.