Your reasoning is enslaved to your emotions. In addition you seem to be living in an echo chamber. I suggest you try to leave that place and become more enlightened. Simply calling me a racist is poor form.
Yet you are presenting racist arguments. For example. You claim that racism is genetic. You claim that your "scientist" is correct on this. I would point out that even if this is correct it is only useful to support a racist agenda. I would point out that people are genetically wired to eat one another too but we do not allow such behavior. We are genetically wired to kill one another. Yet we tend not to do this. Why? Because the very act of being a modern human is all about suspending things we are wired to do and to form a reasonable society thereby.
You claim that using sex as a measure for appointing cabinet members is unfair. I say this is nonsense for several reasons. The first is the most obvious. Political appointees are, by definition, not picked because they are the best candidates and it is absurd to thing that this is the aim when doing it. They are picked, first and foremost, because they are deemed to be good fits to sell and/or administer the administration's policies. Can you name a single cabinet person in Canada or the US who is the undisputed best prepared in their appointed field? Of course you can't.
Reason two. Gender IS
a qualification for a job. Canada and the US are representative democracies. (Do not post garbage about our not being democracies.) Do women have the right to expect that their government (and remember women are the majority of voters) be constituted of people to represent them who have experienced their unique gender based issues? Of course they do. People have the right to see themselves represented in their government.
@Julian658 said specifically:
Trudeau used gender to have a 50:50 male female cabinet. That means someone qualified may have been disqualified because of gender. This is not rocket science. Unless you propose he picked the most qualified and by chance it came in as 50:50 male female ratio.
What is not rocket science ought to be that your whole argument is nonsense. Lots of people were passed by who are male even though they were the "most qualified" as were many highly qualified women.
Reason three. Trudeau ran on a party platform where he said he would make the cabinet more inclusive. And he got elected. The people who elected him should expect him to make good on this promise. So should you.
Here in the states we are are subjected to your kind of shallow racism all of the time. Not a single bit of what you offered Godstud as "evidence" stands up to scrutiny. Take some time and think about the world you have constructed in your narrative. You imagine a strict meritocracy with inflexible rules giving all opportunities to the "most qualified". If you think of it that way you will see the idea is folly. It has never been done, will never be done, and ought not to be done.
All you did is post some indefensible rationalization to explain your preference for open racism. I need not "prove" this to you. I have your own words and conclusions on the forum to do it. How about this. How about some evidence from you that either the Canadian or US constitutions requires or even imagines a meritocracy?
"We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated." Trump.
"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay? " Trump
The American dream is about freedom. Pelosi