I Refute you thus! Well, of course not. Where did that come from? You should at least read and understand a post before responding to it.
On average. The statistical male is better at spatial tasks than the statistical female. Saying that is not sexist. But refusing to hire the outlying woman who is spectacular at spatial tasks for a spatial task is very sexist. That's what sexism is, judging and limiting individuals from a group based on the perceived average tendencies of the group.
I said read and understand. I was hoping you could extrapolate from the extreme example I gave. Let me try again. You are in a forest, and certain shades of red berries are poisonous. You have one group of men and one group of women, and all you know about them is what you see. Would you pick one of the women for berry detail, or one of the men? Or maybe you would use some other attribute to choose(e.g., height). If you picked a woman, you're more likely to live. But if you picked her because of he sex (maybe knowing that women perceive color better than men) you are a sexist. You have discriminated for her based on her sex.
How is that any different than asking Worf to move the log off your crushed legs than asking Keiko to do it? Assuming these berries were so subtle in color that a quick run through of your team as to which ones to pick had shown you that the women picked better.
That's not sexism. Sexism is when you ignore a superior candidate, with superior skills in favour of an inferior candidate with inferior skills because their gender is preferred... Or sexism is when you chose to abuse or penalize some one with indeterminate skills because their gender is unappealing. Your examples are creating a situation where gender is the only differing factor between absolutely equal candidates, or gender biology disqualifies one gender from whatever vetting process is being put to task. Vulcans are 5 times stronger, 3 times faster and ten times smarter. There shouldn't be any humans, male or female in Starfleet whatsoever. Besides remember the Thunderdome entrance exam to Starfleet Academy? 5 kids beat the shit out of each other until one is left standing. Humans pitted against Vulcans would cry foul as loudly as Vulcans might sook about how unfair it is that they might have to do anything else than easily humiliate 4 puny humans. In such situations, I think the humans to be fair must draw straws to see who gets to go through, and who the other three contestants are that are to stumble and cock block the Vulcan from an easy victory.
The only way this choice could be sexist is: 1. if you chose a man knowing that the woman's choice would be better, or 2 if you never chose a woman because berry picking had been designated "men's work," so women never got the chance to prove they could do it and do it better. And finally it is not reverse discrimination to force the men to allow women to choose berries - making someone share a privilege isn't discrimination, and all of this is assuming that berry picking was a high paying job.
A better question is, how are they the same? No, you are ignoring the parameters of our little thought experiment. All you know is their physical attributes by looking at them, and that one group is men and the other women. No testing them first: You have to rely on your wits. Also, I'm a little surprised that you don't know that women are better at discriminating among colors. Click here to learn a little about it! You can't just make up your own definition for 'sexism' and argue from there. Click here to expand your knowledge of 'sexism'! Nice try, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. You started this discussion by setting the parameters, and I quote, "There is no human on human sexism."
If you wanted to live you'd pick me, because I've been tested to have perfect color perception. It's kind of like perfect pitch, but with color. Or, if you're Janeway, you pick Seven, because even if she doesn't have natural ability, she has a Borg eye.
Dude. That study is almost four hundred years out of date! You might as well be trying to apply the legal code from the 17th century to our comings and goings today. It's really careless of you to be so backward and fall behind the times. Maybe you need to take a refresher course accepting a more modern take on the subject?
He was a rather good killing machine, but I don't think he altogether brought the sexy to JJ's party.
Well you could always ask if anyone of them knew anything about what potential food stuffs to avoid in a forrest. Or observe other creatures to see what they avoided eating.
I would always pick the lovely Teya, no matter what. WOW!!!! You think a Stanford Research Paper relevant to the unique elements that form a basic part of human life is out of date after 10 years??? Maybe you misread the publication date: February 2003. Well, I have to go and dispose of my copy of Shadish's Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference--way too old, published in 2001. Then choose, Teacake, choose quickly.
Inconsistancy is bad characterisation, most people behave in a consistant way (most of the time). They don't tend to fluctuate back and forth on a weekly basis.