So there's a strong correlation with being female and being a sex worker, as opposed to male. Now replace the correlation with other undesirable traits, like b

So there's a strong correlation with being female and being a sex worker, as opposed to male. Now replace the correlation with other undesirable traits, like being a thief and having a certain skin colour. Do you still call that a 'blunt tool to crack down on issues that don't necessarily apply to each individual' or can we just call that racial discrimination and agree no such tools should be applied? The idea it's okay for your daughter, wife, mother etc to be denied a seat, where you can sit alone, because she's a priori categorised as a sex worker merely because of gender, is pretty insane to me. Of course your personal relationship shouldn't matter, but maybe it hits home a little bit more like this. The whole idea about discrimination is that people are judged not on the basis of their own behaviour, but the behaviour (or stereotypical views of such) of a group they (often involuntarily) belong to. And that's inherently unfair. Instead we should always try to make a fair assessment of the individual. Of course we use mental shortcuts that can be discriminatory, but we always have to try and allow recourse. That's why a 60 year old tends not to be hired as a security guard, because they lack the fitness. That tends to be viewed as reasonable age discrimination, but only in the context of explaining the underlying assumption, that age determines fitness, and that this assumption is not challenged by the applicant. But if the 60 year old can demonstrate sufficient fitness and challenges the assumption, denying the job based on age is no longer lawful. In short, the assumption must be reasonable, must be made clear, and must not be challenged. I can imagine the owner's worry, and that he profiled her based on mental shortcuts. But if she then demonstrates she is not a sex worker, denying her a seat anyway is silly. Let's not forget, she came there for years. If she came with colleagues, she'd leave with them. If she came alone, she'd leave alone. She never engaged anyone else. The first thing you'd do is have an honest conversation and see if your assumptions are even correct in the first place. In this case they went straight to applying a policy based on a wrongful assumption, and then denied any recourse or apologies once they were given ample indications to be incorrect in their assumptions. In this case, the assumption was made, was somewhat unreasonable given her familiarity with the staff (knowing faces, names), was not made clear initially, and was not allowed to be challenged. That's sex discrimination, a case handled incorrectly and it's not ok.