Why does being a woman/transgender/gay not count as URM?

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: Why does being a woman/transgender/gay not count as URM?

Postby PDaddy » Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:32 am

GLBT persons, while facing their own forms of discrimination, have not HISTORICALLY been demonstrated to be underrepresented in the legal field.

People forget that the key element to being a URM is not being a demonstrable member of a racial minority, but a historically disenfranchised group...socially, economically and politically. Many GLBT's actually come from diverse economic strata, so there's no way to prevent an adcom from admitting a gay relative of huge Vanderbilts or Hilton's. Giving such a person any kind of "boost" or notable consideration for being GLBT would be patently unfair.

There is a way to effectively turn yourself into a URM: write a diversity statement that connects your status as GLBT to a form of disenfranchisement. It cannot simply be, "I had a boss who fired me for being gay." It must go deeper than that.

Write about the effects of being GLBT and how a specifically related challenge impacted your personal development, and thus your desire to become an attorney. You could actually make this your personal statement.

Remind the adcoms that by admitting you they will not only be admitting a qualified individual but one who has overcome hardships that result from GLBT status and who will therefore bring strong diversity to the table.

In other words, your hardships will still be important, but as a way to provide a framework for viewing your accomplishments. Attempts to classify yourself in a way that equates GLBT to being Black American, American Indian or Mexican will read as being whiny, disingenuous and self-entitled.

But as a black American I can understand why OP would ask this question.
Last edited by PDaddy on Wed Jan 15, 2014 4:01 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22892
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Why does being a woman/transgender/gay not count as URM?

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:35 am

Captainunaccountable wrote:Men can't have children. Scientifically women are more empathetic & nurturing. It's like this hormonal thing or something.
But these scientific results may have derived from science once dominated by a white male social hierarchy and thus they probably had some unconscious/socially constructed biases against women when conducting their studies. We will have to disregard them.
I don't understand how women bearing and raising a child is 'culturally fixed'. Even if it is fixed and sexist, I'd suppose it's probably a good thing as their scientific structure is predicated upon inherent gifts in so doing. In fact, women produce an abundant amount of estrogen and other chemicals for the sole purposes of nurturing their children. So if the argument is that women are 'discriminated' because of 'gender expectations' (i.e. raising their children) I'd say that the argument is invalid because they are not 'forced by society' to raise children.

There's nothing inherently wrong with any given gender role. The problem is when one kind of gender role (who does what to raise kids) clashes with another one (the behaviors valued in certain kinds of careers). This affects both men and women - men aren't expected to take on the kind of roles in parenting that women are, for instance, and I'm sure plenty would love to be the primary caretaker or stay at home parent, or would be really great at it.

Also, your science is for shit.

Captainunaccountable
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 1:36 pm

Re: Why does being a woman/transgender/gay not count as URM?

Postby Captainunaccountable » Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:42 am

scoobers wrote:
Captainunaccountable wrote:
scoobers wrote:
Captainunaccountable wrote:Men can't have children. Scientifically women are more empathetic & nurturing. It's like this hormonal thing or something.
But these scientific results may have derived from science once dominated by a white male social hierarchy and thus they probably had some unconscious/socially constructed biases against women when conducting their studies. We will have to disregard them.
I don't understand how women bearing and raising a child is 'culturally fixed'. Even if it is fixed and sexist, I'd suppose it's probably a good thing as their scientific structure is predicated upon inherent gifts in so doing. In fact, women produce an abundant amount of estrogen and other chemicals for the sole purposes of nurturing their children. So if the argument is that women are 'discriminated' because of 'gender expectations' (i.e. raising their children) I'd say that the argument is invalid because they are not 'forced by society' to raise children.


1.) No.

2.) Men can't have children, but they are sure as hell biologically engineered to make sure their progeny continues to survive.

edit: I reread that a third time, and I'll just go with no to the entire thing except "But these scientific results may have derived from science once dominated by a white male social hierarchy and thus they probably had some unconscious/socially constructed biases against women when conducting their studies. We will have to disregard them." Everything else is blatantly wrong.


So men can be 'biologically engineered :? ' for something but women can't? As far as denying the truth of my second sentence; I'm sorry but you're just wrong on that front. That's some entry level science right there.
So is most of the history of our civilization as we know it predicated on falsely constructed, discriminatory gender roles? Please tell me more about this.


Did you read the last four pages? The fact that women can be engineered to fit a specific social norm is the entire argument. Gender is a social construct. HTH.


I don't understand..why are there even two different sexes in the first place? Why didn't nature (or god, whomever) just create one being that could perform all necessary life functions equally if we are so similar and so 'shaped or 'fixed' by our culture? Your argument ignores history. There's a reason these 'social constructs' exist, because they're consistent with biology. Women were not just arbitrarily proscribed some role at the beginning of time by some old white men. Come on.

NYstate
Posts: 1566
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:44 am

Re: Why does being a woman/transgender/gay not count as URM?

Postby NYstate » Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:45 am

Am I the only biglaw lawyer in this thread? ( Dresden doll maybe) You are quite wrong. Women get invited to client dinners, outings, clubs, etc. no one has much time for this anyway.

I know of two women in different departments who were passed over for partner, where major clients took business from the firm because they had been backing them for partner. One took some of this work with her when she joined another biglaw firm as a partner. The other went in house at a very high level at a different large institutional client within a month of being passed over. There are more examples I can come up with along the same lines. You can't say that women at biglaw firms don't get client exposure and development within the institutional clients at the firm.

I know my evidence is limited to my experience but it is at least as valid as people claiming women don't succeed because they don't get to play golf. That just isn't true. Every client dinner I've attended the women associates are there too. And anyone can call the client they are working with and suggest lunch. Women get access to firm tickets to take clients places equal to men. One woman at my firm invites people/ clients and lawyers as guests to the Westchester Country Club, which has a golf course that they've played professional golf . tournaments. Her family has been members for years. Yes they limit the number of guests you can have, but it isn't as if she is at a disadvantage in the sports department.

You guys are way oversimplifying and generalizing and maybe I'm being too specific, but I can only offer examples based on experience that I know refute these generalities.

My argument is that these women are equally qualified to be made partner- not that they've had less of anything that the men have in terms of work or clients or whatever you think it might be- but some of them are being passed over. They deserve to be partners just as much
as the men.

I am leaving the country tomorrow so I won't be able to comment more in this thread. Just mentioning that so you don't think I've left this discussion in frustration.

User avatar
sublime
Posts: 15419
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Why does being a woman/transgender/gay not count as URM?

Postby sublime » Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:45 am

..

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22892
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Why does being a woman/transgender/gay not count as URM?

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:48 am

NYstate wrote:Am I the only biglaw lawyer in this thread? ( Dresden doll maybe) You are quite wrong. Women get invited to client dinners, outings, clubs, etc. no one has much time for this anyway.

I know of two women in different departments who were passed over for partner, where major clients took business from the firm because they had been backing them for partner. One took some of this work with her when she joined another biglaw firm as a partner. The other went in house at a very high level at a different large institutional client within a month of being passed over. There are more examples I can come up with along the same lines. You can't say that women at biglaw firms don't get client exposure and development within the institutional clients at the firm.

I know my evidence is limited to my experience but it is at least as valid as people claiming women don't succeed because they don't get to play golf. That just isn't true. Every client dinner I've attended the women associates are there too. And anyone can call the client they are working with and suggest lunch. Women get access to firm tickets to take clients places equal to men. One woman at my firm invites people/ clients and lawyers as guests to the Westchester Country Club, which has a golf course that they've played professional golf . tournaments. Her family has been members for years. Yes they limit the number of guests you can have, but it isn't as if she is at a disadvantage in the sports department.

You guys are way oversimplifying and generalizing and maybe I'm being too specific, but I can only offer examples based on experience that I know refute these generalities.

My argument is that these women are equally qualified to be made partner- not that they've had less of anything that the men have in terms of work or clients or whatever you think it might be- but some of them are being passed over. They deserve to be partners just as much
as the men.

I am leaving the country tomorrow so I won't be able to comment more in this thread. Just mentioning that so you don't think I've left this discussion in frustration.

I know you're leaving, but which generalities are you trying to refute? Just because I agree with you (to the extent I know anything about it), and wanted to make sure I wasn't giving the impression that I didn't.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22892
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Why does being a woman/transgender/gay not count as URM?

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:54 am

Captainunaccountable wrote:I don't understand..why are there even two different sexes in the first place? Why didn't nature (or god, whomever) just create one being that could perform all necessary life functions equally if we are so similar and so 'shaped or 'fixed' by our culture? Your argument ignores history. There's a reason these 'social constructs' exist, because they're consistent with biology. Women were not just arbitrarily proscribed some role at the beginning of time by some old white men. Come on.

If you actually study history, you discover that there are actually quite a lot of variations across time and space in gender roles regarding child-rearing and work. That seems rather odd if it's all determined by biology. Also, the significance of who's expected to do what in terms of child-rearing varies a lot according to the economic regime - how people work to support themselves and how that fits with family responsibilities.

NYstate
Posts: 1566
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:44 am

Re: Why does being a woman/transgender/gay not count as URM?

Postby NYstate » Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:09 am

The generalities about women not getting client development, not getting to attend things that the guys do, being excluded such that when they are up for partner they aren't bringing the same qualities/ abilities to the table as the men do. That women don't socialize in effective ways with clients.

Forgot to mention that the woman who went in house pulled work from our firm because she was so pissed at how she had been treated and not made partner. ( basically just being used) Don't forget she invested years and billed thousand of hours all the time being told she had a good chance at partnership. She sent work to a rival firm and will probably act to erode the relationship with my firm over the remainder of her career.

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: Why does being a woman/transgender/gay not count as URM?

Postby PDaddy » Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:54 am

sublime wrote:
Captainunaccountable wrote:I don't understand..why are there even two different sexes in the first place? Why didn't nature (or god, whomever) just create one being that could perform all necessary life functions equally if we are so similar and so 'shaped or 'fixed' by our culture? Your argument ignores history. There's a reason these 'social constructs' exist, because they're consistent with biology. Women were not just arbitrarily proscribed some role at the beginning of time by some old white men. Come on.



popcorn.gif


Sex would be unnecessary, and then humans would be more likely to hate each other.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22892
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Why does being a woman/transgender/gay not count as URM?

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:57 am

NYstate wrote:The generalities about women not getting client development, not getting to attend things that the guys do, being excluded such that when they are up for partner they aren't bringing the same qualities/ abilities to the table as the men do. That women don't socialize in effective ways with clients.

Forgot to mention that the woman who went in house pulled work from our firm because she was so pissed at how she had been treated and not made partner. ( basically just being used) Don't forget she invested years and billed thousand of hours all the time being told she had a good chance at partnership. She sent work to a rival firm and will probably act to erode the relationship with my firm over the remainder of her career.

Thanks for answering. Good travels.

User avatar
iamgeorgebush
Posts: 852
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:57 pm

Re: Why does being a woman/transgender/gay not count as URM?

Postby iamgeorgebush » Wed Jan 15, 2014 9:57 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I agree that it's not just sexist biglaw partners in the sense that there isn't (I hope) a bunch of old white guys sitting round a table smoking cigars saying "I don't like that Jane Smith, she does/doesn't wear tight skirts, NO PARTNERSHIP FOR HER" or even just "that Jane Smith is such a ball-breaker, but John Jones really knows how to drive a hard bargain and I think he'd be a great partner." It is sexist biglaw partners to the extent that they (like all of us) live in a society that has certain gender expectations (and expectations about running a biglaw firm) that tend to make it harder for women to stay on the partnership track, and have absorbed a lot/most of those expectations.

As for fewer women setting out to seek biglaw partnerships or later deciding not to continue - it may well be a factor, in the sense that it's one of the mechanisms by which we end up with fewer women partners (as opposed to, say, women simply getting turned down/fired). I know a number of women who were doing very well at biglaw firms who have left, generally for government work, because the schedule is so much more compatible with the way they want to raise their kids. But again, that's not in a vacuum - it's not an alternative to the influence of gender roles/expectations, it's a career choice made by people only in the context of those gender roles/expectations. So if the implication is that women don't aim for partner because they're less competitive, or they don't value that kind of success - that's possible, but again, it's in the context of a society that (to generalize) values different things in women and men.

(Also, raising kids rather than chasing partner is great. Not suggesting it's a bad decision for anyone. It's just a weird conundrum that what may be the best decision for an individual ends up looking troubling in the collective. Or not, I guess, depending on what you value.)

I don't know, I wouldn't put it past the people making partnership decisions to view similar behavior differently depending on the gender of the person. They might not be smoking cigars (probably just playing golf), but I can very easily imagine two partners saying something like, "You know, Jane Smith and John Jones are both excellent attorneys, but I just don't think Jane has the potential for client development that John has. She's too aggressive, which I could see turning off a lot of clients. John, on the other hand, knows when to be assertive and when to step back. He has the right balance."

Chances are, the woman is just fine with clients, but because she interacts with clients in a different way from those male partners, the partners see Jane as somehow deficient compared to John, John whose way of interacting with clients mirrors their own. People power naturally assume that their way is the best way, even when there are are alternatives that are just as good...and sometimes even better!

Gucci Mane
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:03 pm

Re: Why does being a woman/transgender/gay not count as URM?

Postby Gucci Mane » Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:33 pm

Interesting this that nobody in this thread is willing (or has the nuts) to point out that maybe women are usually inferior to men when it comes to a profession like law. I work in high finance and its the same damn thing, if you don't have high testosterone you won't succeed in the industry. If anything women get institutional favoritism because nobody wants to seem like they're sexist/misogynist and get sued by the eeoc. Lol @ all the dancing around words and politically-correct speak in this thread, its like a bunch of politicians having a competition to see who can offend people the least.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22892
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Why does being a woman/transgender/gay not count as URM?

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:40 pm

Gucci Mane wrote:Interesting this that nobody in this thread is willing (or has the nuts) to point out that maybe women are usually inferior to men when it comes to a profession like law. I work in high finance and its the same damn thing, if you don't have high testosterone you won't succeed in the industry. If anything women get institutional favoritism because nobody wants to seem like they're sexist/misogynist and get sued by the eeoc. Lol @ all the dancing around words and politically-correct speak in this thread, its like a bunch of politicians having a competition to see who can offend people the least.

Nobody's been quite stupid enough to suggest this, except Ron Mexico a page or two back, who just likes to troll the threads where gender comes up. So are you stupid or just a troll?

User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

Re: Why does being a woman/transgender/gay not count as URM?

Postby dresden doll » Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:00 pm

Captainunaccountable wrote:Scientifically women are more empathetic & nurturing. It's like this hormonal thing or something.


Can you link me to some of the (presumably peer-reviewed and double-blind) studies that demonstrated this to be a scientific FACT?

User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

Re: Why does being a woman/transgender/gay not count as URM?

Postby dresden doll » Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:09 pm

Gucci Mane wrote:Interesting this that nobody in this thread is willing (or has the nuts) to point out that maybe women are usually inferior to men when it comes to a profession like law. I work in high finance and its the same damn thing, if you don't have high testosterone you won't succeed in the industry.


Thank God you came in to bust our PC-speak with the brave revolutionary insight that it takes special levels of testosterone to power through doc review like a champ.

20141023
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:17 am

Re: Why does being a woman/transgender/gay not count as URM?

Postby 20141023 » Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:20 pm

.
Last edited by 20141023 on Sun Feb 15, 2015 9:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

Re: Why does being a woman/transgender/gay not count as URM?

Postby dresden doll » Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:27 pm

Next up: captainunaccountable explains why there are different races in this world.

User avatar
lawschool22
Posts: 3875
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:47 pm

Re: Why does being a woman/transgender/gay not count as URM?

Postby lawschool22 » Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:30 pm

iamgeorgebush wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:I agree that it's not just sexist biglaw partners in the sense that there isn't (I hope) a bunch of old white guys sitting round a table smoking cigars saying "I don't like that Jane Smith, she does/doesn't wear tight skirts, NO PARTNERSHIP FOR HER" or even just "that Jane Smith is such a ball-breaker, but John Jones really knows how to drive a hard bargain and I think he'd be a great partner." It is sexist biglaw partners to the extent that they (like all of us) live in a society that has certain gender expectations (and expectations about running a biglaw firm) that tend to make it harder for women to stay on the partnership track, and have absorbed a lot/most of those expectations.

As for fewer women setting out to seek biglaw partnerships or later deciding not to continue - it may well be a factor, in the sense that it's one of the mechanisms by which we end up with fewer women partners (as opposed to, say, women simply getting turned down/fired). I know a number of women who were doing very well at biglaw firms who have left, generally for government work, because the schedule is so much more compatible with the way they want to raise their kids. But again, that's not in a vacuum - it's not an alternative to the influence of gender roles/expectations, it's a career choice made by people only in the context of those gender roles/expectations. So if the implication is that women don't aim for partner because they're less competitive, or they don't value that kind of success - that's possible, but again, it's in the context of a society that (to generalize) values different things in women and men.

(Also, raising kids rather than chasing partner is great. Not suggesting it's a bad decision for anyone. It's just a weird conundrum that what may be the best decision for an individual ends up looking troubling in the collective. Or not, I guess, depending on what you value.)

I don't know, I wouldn't put it past the people making partnership decisions to view similar behavior differently depending on the gender of the person. They might not be smoking cigars (probably just playing golf), but I can very easily imagine two partners saying something like, "You know, Jane Smith and John Jones are both excellent attorneys, but I just don't think Jane has the potential for client development that John has. She's too aggressive, which I could see turning off a lot of clients. John, on the other hand, knows when to be assertive and when to step back. He has the right balance."

Chances are, the woman is just fine with clients, but because she interacts with clients in a different way from those male partners, the partners see Jane as somehow deficient compared to John, John whose way of interacting with clients mirrors their own. People power naturally assume that their way is the best way, even when there are are alternatives that are just as good...and sometimes even better!


I don't disagree that there can be biases. But now you're just imagining an whole scenario that you don't know to be true, and then arguing against it. This is classic straw man.

Also, by your logic, there could be women partners doing the exact same thing to men; that is, misinterpreting their client service skills into something negative, and displaying a bias towards women.

User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

Re: Why does being a woman/transgender/gay not count as URM?

Postby dresden doll » Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:37 pm

lawschool22 wrote:
Also, by your logic, there could be women partners doing the exact same thing to men; that is, misinterpreting their client service skills into something negative, and displaying a bias towards women.


Except there are far fewer women partners so far fewer male associates could be excluded in that way.

Captainunaccountable
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 1:36 pm

Re: Why does being a woman/transgender/gay not count as URM?

Postby Captainunaccountable » Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:42 pm

dresden doll wrote:
Gucci Mane wrote:Interesting this that nobody in this thread is willing (or has the nuts) to point out that maybe women are usually inferior to men when it comes to a profession like law. I work in high finance and its the same damn thing, if you don't have high testosterone you won't succeed in the industry.


Thank God you came in to bust our PC-speak with the brave revolutionary insight that it takes special levels of testosterone to power through doc review like a champ.


I did a minimal amount of research to find this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12414881

This doesn't entirely prove my point that you referenced earlier but it correlates strongly with the fact that hormones do play a large part in the social/behavioral development of the each sex.

User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

Re: Why does being a woman/transgender/gay not count as URM?

Postby dresden doll » Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:47 pm

Captainunaccountable wrote:
dresden doll wrote:
Gucci Mane wrote:Interesting this that nobody in this thread is willing (or has the nuts) to point out that maybe women are usually inferior to men when it comes to a profession like law. I work in high finance and its the same damn thing, if you don't have high testosterone you won't succeed in the industry.


Thank God you came in to bust our PC-speak with the brave revolutionary insight that it takes special levels of testosterone to power through doc review like a champ.


I did a minimal amount of research to find this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12414881

This doesn't entirely prove my point that you referenced earlier but it correlates strongly with the fact that hormones do play a large part in the social/behavioral development of the each sex.


I never took the position that hormones are utterly irrelevant. I'm asking for studies that scientifically show that women are inherently more nurturing. What you linked to doesn't get at that at all.

The term "scientific fact" is reserved for clearly proven truths, such as the effectiveness of vaccination in protecting a child from certain illnesses. It wouldn't at all be an issue to locate plenty of studies who attest to the effectiveness of vaccination, so I expect it to be likewise easy to link to one of the many studies that have established women's inherently superior nurturing capabilities.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22892
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Why does being a woman/transgender/gay not count as URM?

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:50 pm

lawschool22 wrote:
iamgeorgebush wrote:I don't know, I wouldn't put it past the people making partnership decisions to view similar behavior differently depending on the gender of the person. They might not be smoking cigars (probably just playing golf), but I can very easily imagine two partners saying something like, "You know, Jane Smith and John Jones are both excellent attorneys, but I just don't think Jane has the potential for client development that John has. She's too aggressive, which I could see turning off a lot of clients. John, on the other hand, knows when to be assertive and when to step back. He has the right balance."

Chances are, the woman is just fine with clients, but because she interacts with clients in a different way from those male partners, the partners see Jane as somehow deficient compared to John, John whose way of interacting with clients mirrors their own. People power naturally assume that their way is the best way, even when there are are alternatives that are just as good...and sometimes even better!


I don't disagree that there can be biases. But now you're just imagining an whole scenario that you don't know to be true, and then arguing against it. This is classic straw man.

Except that research has shown that people do view the same behavior differently when displayed by men and by women (minor example: people tend to find it normal when men interrupt in conversation, and rude when women do it; men will defer to other men who interrupt, and talk over women who interrupt), and basically the above scenario has been documented to happen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_Wate ... v._Hopkins. I'll grant you it's probably less common now than in 1989, but it's not made up out of whole cloth.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22892
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Why does being a woman/transgender/gay not count as URM?

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:53 pm

dresden doll wrote:
Captainunaccountable wrote:I did a minimal amount of research to find this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12414881

This doesn't entirely prove my point that you referenced earlier but it correlates strongly with the fact that hormones do play a large part in the social/behavioral development of the each sex.


I never took the position that hormones are utterly irrelevant. I'm asking for studies that scientifically show that women are inherently more nurturing. What you linked to doesn't get at that at all.

The term "scientific fact" is reserved for clearly proven truths, such as the effectiveness of vaccination in protecting a child from certain illnesses. It wouldn't at all be an issue to locate plenty of studies who attest to the effectiveness of vaccination, so I expect it to be likewise easy to link to one of the many studies that have established women's inherently superior nurturing capabilities.

Exactly.

Also, what makes a toy masculinized toy and what is playing with a toy in a more masculine fashion? Are these girls constructing penises out of them or something?

User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

Re: Why does being a woman/transgender/gay not count as URM?

Postby dresden doll » Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:55 pm

Also, is that even a double-blind study? I can't tell from the abstract. If not, the toy play observations aren't exactly worth a ton, and certainly don't rise to the level of "clear, scientifically proven truths."

User avatar
midwest17
Posts: 1686
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 5:27 pm

Re: Why does being a woman/transgender/gay not count as URM?

Postby midwest17 » Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:58 pm

I recommend "Delusions of Gender" by Cordelia Fine.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest