5 ms·

Agreed. Are all non-bisexuals "sexist"? Maybe by some strict definition they are, but not in the ordinary sense we use the term, and to expand its definition

by mlinsey 17y ago

Agreed. Are all non-bisexuals "sexist"? Maybe by some strict definition they are, but not in the ordinary sense we use the term, and to expand its definition to include those sorts of preferences might dilute the moral case against racism and sexism.

emmett 17y ago
There's a clear difference between sex and race when it comes to, um, sex. Conflating the two doesn't make much sense in this instance.
- rsheridan6 17y ago
  What is that difference? It's ok to discriminate based on sex but not on race? Why or why not?
  - codexon 17y ago
    So it's equally ok to discriminate on child bearing abilities and race? Hint: one of these attributes has a practical purpose in the perpetuation of human society, and the other does not.
    - rsheridan6 17y ago
      That would only apply to people who intend to bear children. What if you're childfree and intend to remain that way, beyond your childbearing years, or you've had a vasectomy/tubal ligation? By your logic, would it not then be ok to discriminate based on race?
      - codexon 17y ago
        If you are going to make a sweeping argument with such specific circumstances, it is up to you to prove that it applies to the majority.
        rsheridan6 17y ago
        I'm not the one who said it wasn't ok to discriminate based on race when you choose who you're going to date. Fuck or don't fuck whomever you want, it's none of my business (FWIW I am white and married to a white woman, but would not have automatically rejected someone for being of another race). I was just asking asking a question. Nobody here has attempted to prove that anything - that it's ok or not ok to discriminate based on race or gender. I'm just asking, what's the difference? It seems to me that the same principle of equality that says it's not ok to have a preference in partners based on race should say that it's not ok to have a preference based on gender, assuming that discrimination based on gender in general is not ok. This is the logical consequence of the position that discrimination is not acceptable. Your first attempt to show the difference, based on procreation, was a failure, so you're reduced to calling the next logical step "ridiculous," which is not really an argument. I don't think there is a good argument for your position. 20 years ago, people would have said that the idea that not dating people of a particular race makes you racist was ridiculous, but here we are.
        codexon 17y ago
        > It seems to me that the same principle of equality that says it's not ok to have a preference in partners based on race should say that it's not ok to have a preference based on gender, assuming that discrimination based on gender in general is not ok. Applying the "principle of equality" with a total disregard for the facts is fallacious. Why stop at race and gender? Why do we discriminate against corpses (necrophiliacs) or even different species (zoophilia)? This is the ridiculous argument you are presenting. A line has to be drawn somewhere and the tone of your skin should be a far less compelling characteristic than gender.
        rsheridan6 17y ago
        I'm not presenting a ridiculous argument, I'm just pointing out the consequences of making non-discrimination your highest principle. I'm not interested in telling other people who to have sex with. And there are definitely zoophiles who seek acceptance and are waiting for their Stonewall, probably necrophiles too. It looks like you've arbitrarily decided where the cutoff should be between acceptable discrimination and unacceptable discrimination. There are others who still think (as almost everybody did from about the 60s-90s) that the line should be drawn entirely outside of dating preferences. I don't see what makes your opinion any more binding than theirs.
    - rictic 17y ago
      Ok, if that's the basis of your objection then the situation of dating a woman who is physically unable to have children is analogous to dating a man?
      - codexon 17y ago
        The point is that using gender preference as an excuse for race preference is ridiculous.
        hughprime 17y ago
        Gender preference is certainly non-equivalent to race preference. On the other hand, it does show that certain forms of discrimination which would be wrong (and just plain illegal) in other settings are perfectly okay in a dating setting. As a better example, I'm not interested in dating women who are old, ugly, fat, or have children, and that's perfectly okay. If I were not interested in hiring women who were old, ugly, fat or have children then I'd have a serious lawsuit on my hands. Now personally, I think that refusing to date someone based on their race is both regrettable and closed-minded, but it's not detestable the way that actual racism is.
        codexon 17y ago
        >"As a better example, I'm not interested in dating women who are old, ugly, fat, or have children, and that's perfectly okay. If I were not interested in hiring women who were old, ugly, fat or have children then I'd have a serious lawsuit on my hands." If you looked at the other OkCupid chart, it shows that race has little impact on interracial match %. It's fairly certain that "old, ugly, fat, have children" are all characteristics that would lower the match %, therefore you argument of equating these different traits is debunked. Your bit about hiring is also suspect. Think about 50+ years ago when minorities such as blacks really weren't up to standard due to years of slavery and persecution. Back then it was also seen as "legitimate" (using your argument) to not hire black people in the same way that people aren't dating minorities today. >"Now personally, I think that refusing to date someone based on their race is both regrettable and closed-minded, but it's not detestable the way that actual racism is." What is this "actual" racism? Since when is there "actual" racism and "fake" racism? I'm amazed at how many upvotes you have received with what is basically a No true Scotsman fallacy comment.
  - emmett 17y ago
    When it comes to sex, it's ok to discriminate on the basis of sex, because when it comes to sex the different sexes are very different. Their sexual characteristics are different, they produce different sex hormones, and they even participate in the act of sex in completely different ways. Were there to be some activity where your melanin levels were critical (hard to think of a realistic one, but say you were going to be sent on a space journey where extra melanin would be a grave disadvantage nutritionally) then race (or really, skin color - I can't even think of a ridiculous example for race) would be extremely relevant. In that instance, discrimination based on skin color would make perfect sense whereas discrimination based on sex would not have any such obvious connection. Does it make sense now?
- mlinsey 17y ago
  Yes, and? In this post and your next one you present an argument for why discriminating on the basis of sex is more rational than discriminating on the basis of race in terms of who you are attracted to. You seem to think that I was arguing that discrimination on the basis of sex is exactly like discrimination on the basis of race when it comes to picking romantic and/or sexual partners. Perhaps I was unclear due to brevity but that's not what I intended to say at all. My point was that we should refrain from judging people for having racial preferences in who they want to date for the same reason that we should refrain from judging people for having sexual/gender preferences in who they want to date: because nobody really controls who they are attracted to, because attraction is a very personal thing that is based on a whole host of factors, some less rational than others, because there is no basis for saying that any particular set of sexual preferences is "right", and because saying that people ought to be attracted to people who they aren't just leads to alienation and unnecessary grief. All of these preferences probably meet the technical definition of various forms of discrimination, but the words we have for those types of discriminations (rightfully) imply a certain moral judgment about the person being described which I think is inappropriate in this instance.
  - emmett 17y ago
    That's a perfectly legitimate argument for why a race-preference in dating should not be considered racism. I do not object to it now, nor have I ever. What I do object to is conflating sex and race when it comes to questions of sex. The previous claim, which I objected to, was that there's no difference between a sex preference in dating and a race preference in dating. That's definitely not true, for the reasons I've outlined twice now. Personally, I agree with you - a race preference in sexual attraction is not something you really have control over, any more than most other sexual preferences.

by mlinsey 17y ago

emmett 17y ago

There's a clear difference between sex and race when it comes to, um, sex. Conflating the two doesn't make much sense in this instance.

rsheridan6 17y ago
What is that difference? It's ok to discriminate based on sex but not on race? Why or why not?
- codexon 17y ago
  So it's equally ok to discriminate on child bearing abilities and race? Hint: one of these attributes has a practical purpose in the perpetuation of human society, and the other does not.
  - rsheridan6 17y ago
    That would only apply to people who intend to bear children. What if you're childfree and intend to remain that way, beyond your childbearing years, or you've had a vasectomy/tubal ligation? By your logic, would it not then be ok to discriminate based on race?
    - codexon 17y ago
      If you are going to make a sweeping argument with such specific circumstances, it is up to you to prove that it applies to the majority.
      - rsheridan6 17y ago
        I'm not the one who said it wasn't ok to discriminate based on race when you choose who you're going to date. Fuck or don't fuck whomever you want, it's none of my business (FWIW I am white and married to a white woman, but would not have automatically rejected someone for being of another race). I was just asking asking a question. Nobody here has attempted to prove that anything - that it's ok or not ok to discriminate based on race or gender. I'm just asking, what's the difference? It seems to me that the same principle of equality that says it's not ok to have a preference in partners based on race should say that it's not ok to have a preference based on gender, assuming that discrimination based on gender in general is not ok. This is the logical consequence of the position that discrimination is not acceptable. Your first attempt to show the difference, based on procreation, was a failure, so you're reduced to calling the next logical step "ridiculous," which is not really an argument. I don't think there is a good argument for your position. 20 years ago, people would have said that the idea that not dating people of a particular race makes you racist was ridiculous, but here we are.
        codexon 17y ago
        > It seems to me that the same principle of equality that says it's not ok to have a preference in partners based on race should say that it's not ok to have a preference based on gender, assuming that discrimination based on gender in general is not ok. Applying the "principle of equality" with a total disregard for the facts is fallacious. Why stop at race and gender? Why do we discriminate against corpses (necrophiliacs) or even different species (zoophilia)? This is the ridiculous argument you are presenting. A line has to be drawn somewhere and the tone of your skin should be a far less compelling characteristic than gender.
        rsheridan6 17y ago
        I'm not presenting a ridiculous argument, I'm just pointing out the consequences of making non-discrimination your highest principle. I'm not interested in telling other people who to have sex with. And there are definitely zoophiles who seek acceptance and are waiting for their Stonewall, probably necrophiles too. It looks like you've arbitrarily decided where the cutoff should be between acceptable discrimination and unacceptable discrimination. There are others who still think (as almost everybody did from about the 60s-90s) that the line should be drawn entirely outside of dating preferences. I don't see what makes your opinion any more binding than theirs.
  - rictic 17y ago
    Ok, if that's the basis of your objection then the situation of dating a woman who is physically unable to have children is analogous to dating a man?
    - codexon 17y ago
      The point is that using gender preference as an excuse for race preference is ridiculous.
      - hughprime 17y ago
        Gender preference is certainly non-equivalent to race preference. On the other hand, it does show that certain forms of discrimination which would be wrong (and just plain illegal) in other settings are perfectly okay in a dating setting. As a better example, I'm not interested in dating women who are old, ugly, fat, or have children, and that's perfectly okay. If I were not interested in hiring women who were old, ugly, fat or have children then I'd have a serious lawsuit on my hands. Now personally, I think that refusing to date someone based on their race is both regrettable and closed-minded, but it's not detestable the way that actual racism is.
        codexon 17y ago
        >"As a better example, I'm not interested in dating women who are old, ugly, fat, or have children, and that's perfectly okay. If I were not interested in hiring women who were old, ugly, fat or have children then I'd have a serious lawsuit on my hands." If you looked at the other OkCupid chart, it shows that race has little impact on interracial match %. It's fairly certain that "old, ugly, fat, have children" are all characteristics that would lower the match %, therefore you argument of equating these different traits is debunked. Your bit about hiring is also suspect. Think about 50+ years ago when minorities such as blacks really weren't up to standard due to years of slavery and persecution. Back then it was also seen as "legitimate" (using your argument) to not hire black people in the same way that people aren't dating minorities today. >"Now personally, I think that refusing to date someone based on their race is both regrettable and closed-minded, but it's not detestable the way that actual racism is." What is this "actual" racism? Since when is there "actual" racism and "fake" racism? I'm amazed at how many upvotes you have received with what is basically a No true Scotsman fallacy comment.
- emmett 17y ago
  When it comes to sex, it's ok to discriminate on the basis of sex, because when it comes to sex the different sexes are very different. Their sexual characteristics are different, they produce different sex hormones, and they even participate in the act of sex in completely different ways. Were there to be some activity where your melanin levels were critical (hard to think of a realistic one, but say you were going to be sent on a space journey where extra melanin would be a grave disadvantage nutritionally) then race (or really, skin color - I can't even think of a ridiculous example for race) would be extremely relevant. In that instance, discrimination based on skin color would make perfect sense whereas discrimination based on sex would not have any such obvious connection. Does it make sense now?
mlinsey 17y ago
Yes, and? In this post and your next one you present an argument for why discriminating on the basis of sex is more rational than discriminating on the basis of race in terms of who you are attracted to. You seem to think that I was arguing that discrimination on the basis of sex is exactly like discrimination on the basis of race when it comes to picking romantic and/or sexual partners. Perhaps I was unclear due to brevity but that's not what I intended to say at all. My point was that we should refrain from judging people for having racial preferences in who they want to date for the same reason that we should refrain from judging people for having sexual/gender preferences in who they want to date: because nobody really controls who they are attracted to, because attraction is a very personal thing that is based on a whole host of factors, some less rational than others, because there is no basis for saying that any particular set of sexual preferences is "right", and because saying that people ought to be attracted to people who they aren't just leads to alienation and unnecessary grief. All of these preferences probably meet the technical definition of various forms of discrimination, but the words we have for those types of discriminations (rightfully) imply a certain moral judgment about the person being described which I think is inappropriate in this instance.
- emmett 17y ago
  That's a perfectly legitimate argument for why a race-preference in dating should not be considered racism. I do not object to it now, nor have I ever. What I do object to is conflating sex and race when it comes to questions of sex. The previous claim, which I objected to, was that there's no difference between a sex preference in dating and a race preference in dating. That's definitely not true, for the reasons I've outlined twice now. Personally, I agree with you - a race preference in sexual attraction is not something you really have control over, any more than most other sexual preferences.