Marriage, as defined by many states, is sexist as a person is prohibited from marrying a person of a certain gender. So yes it would be sexist to not allow same sex marriage.
The question remains is being sexist always bad?
Yup.
So gender specific bathrooms is bad?
Or are you agreeing that the question remains?
I don’t see how gender specific bathrooms include prejudice or discrimination based on sex - perhaps you could explain what examples of those you see there? I wouldn’t consider myself to have a right to using the same bathrooms as women, which is infringed, either. So I wouldn’t consider it sexism, and therefore not bad (at least, through that reasoning).
A lot depends on how you wish to define what sexism is, if you define it as and bad discrimination based on gender then no the bathroom would not be a part of it, but if you define it as any discrimination based on gender then excluding people from a room based solely on gender while allowing the other would be sexism.
Unless you want to invoke the separate but equal argument.
Discrimination doesn’t just mean treating one group one way and one group another. If it did, we would be committing discrimination at all point in our lives; if I sell a television to a man, and another television to a woman, then I would be guilty of discrimination because those are two different TVs. Treating two different groups in different ways isn’t inherently discriminatory, so long as whatever judgement you’re making doesn’t declare that a person of one group is inherently superior in some way to a person of another based solely on membership of that group rather than an actual judgement of their individual qualities. Which gender-specific bathrooms don’t do.
If you define sexism just as treating two people of different genders differently, then yes, by that definition gender-specific bathrooms would be sexist.
Edit: Seperate but equal is a perfectly acceptable argument. As I said; if I sell you a TV, and I sell a woman a TV, so long as i’ve given you the same model, of the same quality, for the same price, then I have treated you seperately but equally, and fairly, without sexism. The reason why the argument is tainted, and presumably why you’re throwing it at me to try and get me to agree to it, is because in the past as regards racism in the U.S. it wasn’t followed. White people and black people weren’t treated seperately but equally; they were treated unequally.
May as well argue that our healthcare system is inherently racist because black people are more likely to be uninsured.*
*edit: which, while a poor argument, is still better than yours. do you even know what ‘sexism’ is?!
If your healthcare system treated a black person as though they didn’t have insurance, based on the idea that black people are more likely to be uninsured, without actually looking at their own circumstances; then yes, such a system would be racist. If the system treated all black people as though they were uninsured based on a value judgement that did not include whether they were insured or not, and people of other groups other ways, then yes, such a system would be racist. If the system treats black people in accordance with their insured status - without regard for their skin colour, irregardless of whatever overall statistics there may be - and likewise treats white people, Asian people, etc., then it would not be.
The question that seems to be of importance would seem to be; by what measures is it judged that someone may marry another person?
An illogical question. I’ve used the word; if I don’t know what “sexism” is, then logically speaking i’m not going to know about it.
Oh dear god. Talk about bending semantics to fit an argument. All relationships are sexist, then. Somehow, someone chose to be with a member of one sex and not the other. :rolleyes: Apparently only poly relationships aren’t sexist, provided they are done according to the laws of socialism and everything holy.
Not so. The reason you choose to be with a member of one sex and not the other is not sex; if sex were the determinant, then you would choose to be with any member of whichever sex (which would fit in nicely with the polyamory thread, I suppose!). I can’t speak for you, but I would guess that you choose to be with someone based on whether you have feelings for them or not. If that’s only ever people of a particular gender, again, i’m guessing, but it is not through choice that you’re heterosexual (if indeed you are). Discrimination requires an active choice.
Actually, it’s perfectly possible that poly relationships could be sexist.
You’re thinking in a binary fashion. While it is also based on sexual orientation, as has been pointed out, marriage between a gay man and a lesbian is still possible. So GLBTs haven’t been banned from marriage in that sense, so the law isn’t outlawing gays from marrying as much as it is barring two people of the same sex from marrying. So it’s both homophobic AND sexist.
My point was more to look into the issue of the discrimination to the moral issues if that act is good or bad, and not automatically assume bad. Some other forms of discrimination based on gender could be a choice for a mate we could extend this to a babysitter or a nanny, then we could go to a choice for a teacher or even a child adopted or natural. Where one crosses the line of bad discrimination is different then the line for discrimination.
Could you give some examples of discrimination in choosing a teacher or babysitter or nanny or child on the basis of gender that are discriminatory but not bad discriminatory?
Having 2 male children naturally and wanting a female child and requesting adoption of only a female.
Your child responds to a certain gender better and seeking out that gender for your child’s teacher or care giver.
This would depend on why you wanted a female child.
This wouldn’t be based on sex, then; it would be based on the extent to which your child responds well, unless should you find a person who your child responds to very well but is of the “wrong” gender and thus rejected. So not discrimination.
May as well call the law ageist as well. You’re misusing the term sexism, and as someone who has repeatedly fought against it, I resent you for it. Find your own uterus to stand on.
Besides, gay people are a tiny minority and apparently they reject marriage norms, anyway. Sorry, but marriage laws and rights are designed around a family.
The laws are elitist, maybe, but not sexist. Discriminatory? Yeah. Sexist? No.
This is wrong:
All men should enjoy women, or else they are defective.
This is not wrong:
97 per cent of men want to be with a female partner. It is biological, social, and normative.
Why should I call it ageist? Because you need to be over a certain age to marry? That’s certainly accurate, but what is the issue in that case is not the age, but the mental competency to consent of the people involved. Hence why we also don’t allow people who cannot give informed consent for other reasons to marry, either.
I’m sorry you resent me, but you’ve yet to convince me i’m incorrect. I didn’t realise I was required to have a uterus in order to argue this in your eyes.
Uniformly and entirely? I think not. Being a tiny minority does not mean that discrimination against you is not bad. I’m sure that a tiny minority of women are capable of being astronauts, but that wouldn’t mean a blanket ban on female astronauts based solely on gender would not be discrimination. And gay people may have families, happily enough.
So? If those stats are accurate, 3% of men do not want to be with a female partner. Why, on the basis of there being less of them, do they not deserve protection from discrimination?
If there was even just one, sole, single gay person, in a world of entirely straight people, that sole person would be entitled to the same rights that all the others have. A population number doesn’t equal value.
And because it’s worth pointing out, a man wanting to be with a male partner is equally biological and social. Normative, no, but hey, comparative population figures aren’t inherently valued.
That’s a separate issue from sexism, though.
That’s not correct. Sorry. If there were 1 gay person out of 13 billion, that 1 gay person would be a medical mystery.
It’s a biological anomaly by statistics and physiology alone. As we all know, many/most gay couples don’t follow the same social norms as straight ones.
I didn’t say it was justification for discrimination. I said the laws weren’t sexist.