Normally I stay out of conversations like this.... But like Joe Rogan said in one of his old stand-up routines, "If someone is being a silly bitch, then you should call them on it. And you shouldn't have to worry about being called a bigot, racist, homophobe, etc. when you do it".
1) Where is the proof that "those cases are a minority"? I'm talking about a study from a non-biased party, not some group pushing an agenda.
2) You live in the US just like I do, there has been numerous news stories for decades about frivolous lawsuits clogging our judiciary. The reason for many of these lawsuits are lawyers who take a case not on merit but because it'll be high-profile and get them on TV or other publicity and then IF they win they'll take a percentage of the winnings as payment.. The same goes for many of the various "rights" groups, they also enjoy having a "posterchild" for their "cause". So your statement about time, money, and likelyhood of pursuing a lawsuit doesn't fit with what is actually happening.

If you look at how things are going you'll see LeonardoCornejo, in post 7979, was pretty close to today's reality.

Btw I looked up transgender, in the dictionary on my phone, and it said it was a noun. I don't really care, but I had to look it up. Maybe it's an OCD thing idk. :)

Proof that diversity means racism against whites.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/02/08/report-anti-white-agenda-revealed-at-githubs-diversity-team/

Could you perhaps link those studies or one of them? I am interested in how they isolate diversity as a factor for a metric of success of a company.

There's this news article about a study:
http://news.mit.edu/2014/workplace-diversity-can-help-bottom-line-1007

As for actual papers:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212567114001786
http://www.norface-migration.org/publ_uploads/NDP_22_11.pdf
http://ftp.iza.org/dp7350.pdf

These are just what a quick Google search turned up.

I dismiss the first paper and second paper as they have no actual data in them and only refer to other studies for the conclusions.

The norface study is based on "models", which have to be taken with a grain of salt
as they are abstractions and simplifications of reality, which means several variables are excluded which may be significant.. Basically you need models, but without understanding the models they have used, you can't confirm the conclusions.

You realize that the IZA study delivers a quite critical view of "diversity" (age , gender and education), although you also find non scientific biased language in there(traditional firms tend to be more macho, such wording has no value at all in a objective study in my opinion).

"Our results may have important implications for HRM. Diversity, in contrast to a widespread
belief, may not always be beneficial for companies and workers"

To understand how the last two studies come to their conclusions may take some time with the statistical juggling of data and formulas which were used.

Goodbye Gawker

I do not throw my toys over the pram for a "he," myself. I have gotten that, rest assured - at those other shoes. The harsness of your stance is statistically and stereotypically masculine - but unless I know, I take it just for an opinion.

And you just sort of pointed it out--- it is good I think these fora are ...for both of us! ;-)

But in terms of morality, rest assured, it is not "him & her."

Is this Carlos Salinas da Gortari not an exception, even if he was as savage as you implied? That is not representative of a Mexican child, surely? If he did as you said, then rest of his life should be spent in an asylum (unless a cure was certain).

Electrocuting a murderer - how does this make Mexico a better nation? If this Salinas de Gortari was underaged - we were talking about children - then this would go against UN positions too. But Iran does get away with executing juvenile offenders, if that is the company you want to keep.

I am firmly against the death penalty as a Finn, but it is a firm and soft opinion. Firm in being widely held by Finns as an absolute horror, soft in having the concept of redeeming oneself as an actual chance.

You are making rather rude assumptions about me with your statement. First, death penalty is not legal in mexico because the laws are rigged to benefit high profile criminals, second, any child capable of displaying inhuman viciousness is beyond salvation, third, getting away with it is wrong, fourth, my statement was about the lack of freedom minors have and the lack of agency they are given. And finally, you put masculinity as if it was something bad.

Honestly I find it hard not to bervally abuse someone as dense and rude, not to mention apparent misandryst, as you.

So, London appointed actual harassers to make a LGBT police. Seriously, it is hard to believe there is no gay lobby with such things as a LGBT metropolitan police.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/08/22/exclusive-london-lgbt-police-go-trolling-harass-stalk-user-threaten-family/

Rude, dense and misandryst?

You really have not ever come across a fellow fora member a bit different in their values as you, before?

Really?

You were the one whom thought awry of "she." I think "she" is neutral/fine in these fora. You were the one whom stated "electrocuting," Opposing death penalty is pretty normal in Europe.

So please - do abuse someone as dense and rude as me. I still will not think Mexican children should be executed, or are nothing but children.

I know what you mean, just keep in mind you are literally arguing with a projector and try to stay sane.

No. It is not a general rule. I think you don't understand the concept of individual cases and case by case basis. Each case individually. Death penalty is a drastic measure to the most serious actions. It is a way to guarantee with 100% certainty there will be no repeats. Trust me, many Nazi officers were executed for their actions because the chances of them starting the same shit again were high.

Now, it is not that your values are different, many around here have different values to mine, for example many consider the minimal consenting age in Mexico and Japan too low, I find it just fine. We don't have the same set of values. But your case is special because you display a disdain for masculinity. That is a set of values I can't understand or tolerate. Masculinity is part of what I am from birth and saying it is wrong is saying I am inherently wrong.

The correct neutral is neither he nor she, the correct neutral is it, or if you want to sound a bit confusing, they, I think we have reached an agreement on that. And if I don't like being called a she is because, first, that is a false statement about me, I don't like false statements, second, I use my true name, so nobody could confuse me for a female, there are no women named Leonardo at all, and third, I am not amused with the "preferred pronoun" thing. If you are physically male, you ara a man to me, and I will address you as such, if your screen name is male and I can't see your body I will assume you are male. That is why I said the she was uncalled for, because it was not necessary.

If you think you can go and provoke me you will find yourself in a serious pickle because I am not the kind of man who goes for the low hanging fruit and uses petty insults and threats. I am far worse than that because I refute the arguments I can and use those refuted arguments to prove you are in fact either foolish, insane, a liar, or someone who has been lied to.

And sorry if I think Carlos Salinas should have been killed many times, but after seeing how he fucked, and still fucks my country through proxies, I want him dead. And knowing he viciously murdered a woman and got away with it is sickening, even if he was a child. There is a point where boys will be boys is no longer a valid argument and they should be tried as adults due to the severity of their crimes. Do you think a couple of kids who tried to rape a classmate because they were "Playing rape" or kids who murdered a younger child imitating what gangs do are worth saving? I think they have gone too far and should be tried as adults. And so do I think sometimes minors are capable of managing themselves better than adults and there should be more emancipation laws and in general more freedom, agency, and responsibility for minors based on case by case handling of situations instead of umbrella collectivist rules. We are fucking individuals, we can't be ruled by collectivist laws. Results should be based on our individual needs, our merits, and our vices. You won't judge the same someone who murdered a rapist to stop it's crimes than someone who murdered a child for a fucked up Palo ritual. You won't judge the same way a minor who has shown enough maturity to know what is going on and the weight of his actions or his needs than a minor who is not even able to understand why the sun sets, even if they have the same age.

The thing is, using someone's preferred pronoun when referring to that person is a matter of basic respect. If a person says he is a man and uses male pronouns, then you should use male pronouns when referring to him; similarly, if a person says she is a woman and uses female pronouns, then you should use female pronouns when referring to her.

Here is a thought experiment: Let's pretend, for a moment, that you are a transgender man. In particular, you have a female body, complete with boobs (which you are not comfortable with), a uterus, and no facial hair, but you still identify as a man. In particular, that you go by the name Leonardo (and consider that to be your true name) and prefer to be called male pronouns. In this case, wouldn't it still bother you if people kept referring to you as "she", "her", and perhaps by the name "Lauren"? (Pretend that "Lauren" was the name that your parents gave you at birth, but that you rejected at some point because you do not identify as female.)

One other thing: "it" is dehumanizing. It should not be used to refer to a person unless either:
1. The customary use of "it's a boy/girl" when describing a newborn
2. In the rare situation that the person has stated a preferred pronoun of "it" (this is, as I said, rare)

I kind of get your point, but I can't force myself to lie, if I see a man, I see a man.

I fully agree with "it" I go even further in that for me "it" is for non-biological, non-sentient objects that such as a piece of plastic. My own moral code dictates that "it" not to be used for a person

They: used when discussing a group "They are skating over there." or someone that I have not defined by interaction "They cut in front me in traffic." my code is that this is not to be used to refer to the one I am interacting with. so even if your pronoun is "they" I'll not use it.

Xir & other non-english pronouns: give me the english translation, then I'll decide if it (english version) fits within my code.

So. One of Green Day's members, the bass guy, decided to become holier than thou and said Video games and MMA are too violent and calling for their end. Fucking hipster punk faggot. I hated them since "Wake Me Up When September Ends" came out and ever since then I hate them a bit more.
[url=
https://youtu.be/KxjoQWsrNXQ]
https://youtu.be/KxjoQWsrNXQ[/url]

Zoe Quinn spreads lies again, this time on Vice.
https://youtu.be/cHWYJauXZik

Aand Stan Lee Makes an statement on Zendaya as Mary Jane Watson. All he cares about is good acting. You might think it conflicts with what he said about tokenism in the past, but it actually makes sense for him to care more about acting, and if there is no signs of tokenism, well, it is fine for him. And remember the backlash he got in the past for his statement about not changing characters.
https://youtu.be/NBhPuog4TA4