Yes, because nothing of that is relevant for your job, your colleagues and/or your employer, unless you're working as a professional gender theory speaker or something.
Race, gender, ability, and socioeconomic background are incredibly important for designing and implementing products that work for a broad segment of the population. If you scrub that out into a monoculture, you replicate the design flaws that already exist today, and that's a bad thing.
It's true that the status quo probably designs products just fine for you. They were designed by people who look like you for people who look like you. That's not the case for the majority of the world's population.
If the most vocal diversity proponents who claim that "meritocracy is unfair towards women" (yes, German DEI activists are that insane...) get what they ask for, I'll be the least important employee because I'm a heterosexual "cis" white male
A.) In societies where gender inequality exists, the idea of meritocracy as currently implemented, with the assumptions we currently hold about meritocracy are unfair towards women and other gender minorities.
B.) No one is asking you to be the "least important" as a cishet white male (btw, you don't need to put cis in quotes), we want everyone to be equal. That might look like a drop in status to you either way, but that's what actual meritocracy would demand.
It really feels like you're willfully ignoring the critiques of meritocracy as a flawed implementation of an ideal system, and you just keep batting the term around like a cure all. I recommend doing some reading on the research that's actually been done by qualified academics on the idea of meritocracy and systemic inequality, rather than relying on gut instinct and anecdote. It's difficult to have a coherent conversation when we're operating with such wildly diverging definitions of terms.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Race, gender, ability, and socioeconomic background are incredibly important for designing and implementing products that work for a broad segment of the population. If you scrub that out into a monoculture, you replicate the design flaws that already exist today, and that's a bad thing.
It's true that the status quo probably designs products just fine for you. They were designed by people who look like you for people who look like you. That's not the case for the majority of the world's population.
A.) In societies where gender inequality exists, the idea of meritocracy as currently implemented, with the assumptions we currently hold about meritocracy are unfair towards women and other gender minorities.
B.) No one is asking you to be the "least important" as a cishet white male (btw, you don't need to put cis in quotes), we want everyone to be equal. That might look like a drop in status to you either way, but that's what actual meritocracy would demand.
It really feels like you're willfully ignoring the critiques of meritocracy as a flawed implementation of an ideal system, and you just keep batting the term around like a cure all. I recommend doing some reading on the research that's actually been done by qualified academics on the idea of meritocracy and systemic inequality, rather than relying on gut instinct and anecdote. It's difficult to have a coherent conversation when we're operating with such wildly diverging definitions of terms.