I don't think this informal study presents as strong of an argument as you may think it does. As the author themselves admitted, seniority was strongly correlated with rate of interruption, but they didn't control for that in their overall gender comparison. The top three out of four interrupters were women. As it turns out, that particular set of people had a lower number of women in positions of seniority. Is that not a plausible explanation, or at least a confounding factor that you would like to eliminate, before you declare that men interrupt x3 as much?

Do you have another, more rigorous study?

"Informal study"? Isn't that an oxymoron?

It's funny that you linked to that as I was about to dig up a more recent episode, http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2017/0.... Which is in no way to diminish the fact men talk over women but to point out the idea of different conversational styles and how they can each frustrate the other.

If men are 3x as likely to interrupt women, is it sexism or simply a biological tendency? And if it is a biological tendency, is it not sexist to shame men for their more assertive tendencies?

Does it matter?

I'd put the emphasis on the outcome: women being able to express their opinions and contribute to the conversation / problem. Being interrupted (while speaking less in the first place) seems counterproductive to that end.

So its an argument between equal opportunity and equal outcome. It sounds like people want to shame men so as to gain an equal outcome.

Is there a better solution? I'm being serious.

(At the very least, we don't need to accuse men of being sexist if is proven to be a biological tendency—we should call a spade a spade)

How is sexism that's biologically based not sexism? Just like biologically based racism (not my race) still being racist?

The equal outcome is men and women both being given equal and fair opportunities to express their viewpoints.

If this isn't the case because {reason}, then to me that's justification enough to attempt to redress the issue through modified behavior.

If men are 3x as likely to engage in violent behaviour, is it sexism or simply a biological tendency? And if it is a biological tendency, is it not sexist to shame men for their more assertive tendencies?

/sarcasm

Interrupting somebody else isn't physically hurting anybody. This is a real argument that affects lots of people. Don't dilute it with your sarcastic strawmans.

I was countering one strawman argument with another. Please realize that the bar to meet here isn't violence, it's professional and courtesy.

When did I advocate violence? I was trying to take a step back by suggesting that there may be no sexism involved here. Its a valid point.

You didn't. I don't think you did. It was just a reverse moving goalposts argument to suggest that both propositions were wrong.

But "if men are 3x as likely to interrupt women" is literally an example of sexism... the likelihood of interrupting a woman over interrupting a man.

Sexism IS a biological tendency. There is no rational basis for it when scientists are contributing to something as esoteric as string theory. This story overwhelmingly demonstrates how absurd sexism can get.

In any case it is perfectly acceptable to shame someone when they are being rude and excluding someone one from contributing. Especially when that someone is an expert.

The reason why I think she did not take any affront is because she already understands the subject matter. She's motivated not only in understanding herself, but in determining and helping others to comprehend. She can't actually engage in a proper discussion until she realizes that her counterpart also understands the material. When things get complicated, you have to continually establish a common basis for discussion which requires fostering patience.

> Sexism IS a biological tendency

not at all

sexism is behaviour

sexism is believing that women cannot do something because women are inferior by design, not thinking that they are generally weaker (biologically true) and it's probably best if it's the man who carries the heavier luggage

> "if men are 3x as likely to interrupt women" is literally an example of sexism.

no. because men don't interrupt women 3x as likely but it's sexism to assume they do just because you believe it's true