Your core assumption is false. Education is not evenly distributed alongside ideologies.
Education is negatively correlated with conservatism, thus a sample of a job requiring higher education will not be representative of the general public.
Education is negatively correlated with conservatism, thus a sample of a job requiring higher education will not be representative of the general public.
That is, in 19% of jobs it is an official, open requirement. It's safe to assume the unofficial discrimination is higher.
Or this one: Required ‘diversity and inclusion’ statements amount to a political litmus test for hiring - https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-universitys-new-loyalty-oat...
Or this one: Berkeley Weeded Out Job Applicants Who Didn't Propose Specific Plans To Advance Diversity - https://reason.com/2020/02/03/university-of-california-diver...
Or this one: A recent report from the Goldwater Institute found that 80% of job postings for Arizona’s public universities required applicants to submit a statement detailing their commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. - https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/policy-report/the-new-loy...
Or how about directly from the horse's mouth: Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences Will No Longer [i.e. they did until 2024] Require Diversity Statements - https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/6/4/dei-faculty-hiri...
And a few more admissions of past use of these statements:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/20/us/diversity-statements-u...
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/06/us/politics/dei-statement...
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/05/us/university-of-michigan...
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/08/us/ucla-dei-statement.htm...
Oh, and just to show my statement on unofficial discrimination being higher wasn't uninformed speculation:
With State Bans on D.E.I., Some Universities Find a Workaround: Rebranding - https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/12/us/diversity-ban-dei-coll...
> I already am eating from the trashcan all the time. The name of this trashcan is ideology. The material force of ideology - makes me not see what I'm effectively eating. It's not only our reality which enslaves us. The tragedy of our predicament - when we are within ideology, is that - when we think that we escape it into our dreams - at that point we are within ideology.
No, you decided to vote republicans when you stop agreeing with some of the science.
> (conservatives actually talk with me, while liberals shun me if I ask for evidence)
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=fr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=tran...
Gender-affirming care is not "anti-science", you just don't understand the science.
Gender-affirming care is not saying that people can change their biological sex. It was never that. That was, and will remain, a conservative hallucination.
Gender-affirming care is about curtailing the effects of gender dysphoria and improving the quality of life of transgender individuals, and some cisgender individuals. Which is science-backed. It works. Gender-affirming care leads to better outcomes for transgender individuals, period.
The problem here with you, and other's, is that you're just arguing the wrong points. You might not think gender dysphoria is real or that it matters, but that's not the conversation. The conversation is "does gender-affirming care help people and improve outcomes". Which yes, it does.
Whether those people deserve to be helped is not a scientific question. It's a political one. Please, know and understand the difference.