4 ms·

But we allow that kind of discrimination based on physical characteristics all the time. Why is it an acceptable basis to discriminate on height, but not melan

But we allow that kind of discrimination based on physical characteristics all the time. Why is it an acceptable basis to discriminate on height, but not melanin content? Because there’s a ton of “one size fits all” products which don’t fit the ends of the bell curve, and reflect the choice of manufacturer to not serve all body types. I think it’s a poor choice for a door lock, but I’m not sure I a priori think it’s unacceptable for a product to not work for some (~10%) portion of the population — especially when it reflects an engineering reality (skin reflectivity; feature sharpness), and not choice.

crooked-v 8y ago
> Why is it an acceptable basis to discriminate on height, but not melanin content? Because society as a whole hasn't spent hundreds of years literally enslaving short people before deciding that strict moral and legal standards are necessary to prevent it from happening again.
- 0815test 8y ago
  > Because society as a whole hasn't spent hundreds of years literally enslaving short people Actually, they have done exactly that. For many centuries before appropriate nutrition became essentially ubiquitous, there was indeed a highly-significant correlation between height and social class - and the lowest class often faced near-slavery conditions in surprisingly recent times, especially outside Western Europe. Of course, you're right that "strict moral and legal standards" are rather lacking on the issue. I'm not sure that we would agree on whether that's a desirable state of affairs.
  - crooked-v 8y ago
    Comparing the unpleasantness of peasant life to literal chattel slavery is disingenuous at best, and you're conflating correlation and causation here, as people in unpleasant lives coincidentally ending up short because of poor nutrition is a far cry from cross-continental kidnapping and selling members of a genetically-short ethnic group on an industrial scale.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
handoflixue 8y ago
> I think it’s a poor choice for a door lock, but I’m not sure I a priori think it’s unacceptable for a product to not work for some (~10%) portion of the population — especially when it reflects an engineering reality If my employer specifies a uniform, it's their obligation to provide one to 100% of their employees, not the 90% covered by the cheap "one size fits all" company they prefer to use. If my landlord specifies a locking system, it's their obligation to provide one that unlocks 100% of the time for everyone who rents there. There's also an issue of scale: an apartment is a fairly major decision with a lot of other factors, that affects a huge chunk of your life. Being locked out by a small, easily changed decision on the landlord's part is unreasonable. Conversely, if you can't wear a "one size fits all" product, there's plenty of other options out there, and you're not potentially creating segregated neighborhoods, locking black people out of living near good jobs, etc..
- FakeComments 8y ago
  > If my employer specifies a uniform, it's their obligation to provide one to 100% of their employees, not the 90% covered by the cheap "one size fits all" company they prefer to use. Only if such clothes are reasonably commercially available — otherwise, they have a bonda fine business reason to discriminate in hiring, and may do so. I think you’d find you also had a really hard time for suing if they just didn’t hire you on the basis of the uniforms they had not fitting. So you seem factually incorrect about the height case. > if you can't wear a "one size fits all" product, there's plenty of other options out there, and you're not potentially creating segregated neighborhoods, locking black people out of living near good jobs, etc.. This is again mistaken. If you’re at the ends of the bell curve for height, you can’t reliably find work clothes through normal channels, and are thus unable to reliably signal your qualification for a white collar job. The lack of height appropriate clothing impacts the ability of very tall or very short people to “dress for success”, and hence harms their chances of attaining the best jobs. Your comments merely reflect your cis-height privilege and implicit heightism. Further, it speaks to your implicit racism, because you view melanin as somehow biologically more meaningful than height.
  - handoflixue 8y ago

crooked-v 8y ago

> Why is it an acceptable basis to discriminate on height, but not melanin content? Because society as a whole hasn't spent hundreds of years literally enslaving short people before deciding that strict moral and legal standards are necessary to prevent it from happening again.

0815test 8y ago
> Because society as a whole hasn't spent hundreds of years literally enslaving short people Actually, they have done exactly that. For many centuries before appropriate nutrition became essentially ubiquitous, there was indeed a highly-significant correlation between height and social class - and the lowest class often faced near-slavery conditions in surprisingly recent times, especially outside Western Europe. Of course, you're right that "strict moral and legal standards" are rather lacking on the issue. I'm not sure that we would agree on whether that's a desirable state of affairs.
- crooked-v 8y ago
  Comparing the unpleasantness of peasant life to literal chattel slavery is disingenuous at best, and you're conflating correlation and causation here, as people in unpleasant lives coincidentally ending up short because of poor nutrition is a far cry from cross-continental kidnapping and selling members of a genetically-short ethnic group on an industrial scale.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

handoflixue 8y ago

> I think it’s a poor choice for a door lock, but I’m not sure I a priori think it’s unacceptable for a product to not work for some (~10%) portion of the population — especially when it reflects an engineering reality If my employer specifies a uniform, it's their obligation to provide one to 100% of their employees, not the 90% covered by the cheap "one size fits all" company they prefer to use. If my landlord specifies a locking system, it's their obligation to provide one that unlocks 100% of the time for everyone who rents there. There's also an issue of scale: an apartment is a fairly major decision with a lot of other factors, that affects a huge chunk of your life. Being locked out by a small, easily changed decision on the landlord's part is unreasonable. Conversely, if you can't wear a "one size fits all" product, there's plenty of other options out there, and you're not potentially creating segregated neighborhoods, locking black people out of living near good jobs, etc..

FakeComments 8y ago
> If my employer specifies a uniform, it's their obligation to provide one to 100% of their employees, not the 90% covered by the cheap "one size fits all" company they prefer to use. Only if such clothes are reasonably commercially available — otherwise, they have a bonda fine business reason to discriminate in hiring, and may do so. I think you’d find you also had a really hard time for suing if they just didn’t hire you on the basis of the uniforms they had not fitting. So you seem factually incorrect about the height case. > if you can't wear a "one size fits all" product, there's plenty of other options out there, and you're not potentially creating segregated neighborhoods, locking black people out of living near good jobs, etc.. This is again mistaken. If you’re at the ends of the bell curve for height, you can’t reliably find work clothes through normal channels, and are thus unable to reliably signal your qualification for a white collar job. The lack of height appropriate clothing impacts the ability of very tall or very short people to “dress for success”, and hence harms their chances of attaining the best jobs. Your comments merely reflect your cis-height privilege and implicit heightism. Further, it speaks to your implicit racism, because you view melanin as somehow biologically more meaningful than height.
- handoflixue 8y ago