Is it valid to speak of primary, secondary and tertiary sexism?
There are primary sexual characteristics (those biological factors which a swimsuit conceals), secondary sexual characteristics (those biological factors which a swimsuit does not conceal; such as physical stature, pitch of voice &c.) and tertiary sexual characteristics (non-biological, learned, possibly varying across cultures; such as dress, grooming, behaviour &c).
Is it valid to distinguish between discrimination based ob primary, secondary and tertiary characteristics, even if we accept that the effects of primary, secondary and tertiary sexism are no different in practice? Discrimination based on secondary and tertiary characteristics would be particularly susceptible to "false positives" insofaras occasionally disadvantaging e.g. a man with a higher-pitched voice, or benefitting e.g, a tall woman?
- BillLv 72 years ago
This sounds like it is coming from a transgender. Oh right, you're transgender.
Discriminating against a characteristic or characteristics is not sexism since the focus is not over the sex of the individual, but over a characteristic or characteristics of the individual that is only related to sex.
If women discriminate against men with high voices they are not sexist, but biased against men with high voices. If men discriminate against women with small boobs they're not sexist against women, but biased against women with small boobs. Really, this whole thing you're going on about sounds really stupid and a blatant abuse of the term sexism.
Also, women that are tall are not going to get any real benefits in most situations since a woman being quite tall is seen as a bad thing in most situations.
Btw, your argument is pretty blatantly ignoring biological reasons why these kind of things exist in the attempt to label them as bad.