Okay, Emmett...

[torquill]

...you started it.

For those unfamiliar with the topic at hand, emmett_the_sane posted a poll, regarding when it is morally acceptable to practice gender discrimination. I tried to take the poll, then started qualifying my answers, and finally gave up and started writing my views on each case. The result was far too long to post as a comment... but that's what I have my own LJ for.

The written text of his poll follows, interspersed with my opinions. Keep in mind that when I talk about morality here, I'm talking about mine, and only mine... that's all I'm qualified to offer. For the actual poll and comments (which are worth reading) I'd urge people to hit his original post.

For which of the following is it morally okay to discriminate based on gender? (Leave legality out of this. If there is a split on one option that would make you say no in some circumstances, but yes in others, please note this in the comments)

• Placement for a job where the gender is relevant (such as acting a particular part in a movie) - relevant, or essential? Most acting jobs allow for gender-bending, whether by artistic license or by makeup. Sure, a role for "The Baker's Wife" can be a little odd if played by a man... but if he is physically capable of fulfilling the job (which is to portray a set character) there's no problem. I think that the same applies to the other classic Hollywood profession...


• Placement for a job where the gender would make the other employees uncomfortable - If that is "uncomfortable to the point of being honestly unable to do their jobs" then I have to say... this is where morality departs from practicality. The purpose of a business or organization is to perform a function. If the introduction of a certain factor impairs that function, then one is defeating the purpose (unless one's intent is the destruction of the organization). Morally I have the obligation to do everything possible to solve the problem, which is where tolerance workshops etc. come in... but morally, I am also prohibited from imposing my own views/morality forcibly on others. The fact that I feel the other employees should not be uncomfortable is moot, should they actually have an unsolvable issue with the situation. Here, the good of the many rule comes in, with a necessary calculation for who "the many" is vs. "the few". That's a situational to me.


• Placement for a job where the gender would make customers or business clients uncomfortable - again, the purpose of a business is to serve customers and clients. This does not mean that the customer is always right... but it does put the purpose of the establishment at odds with the act of bringing in the new hire.


• Personal choice of medical or psychotherapy professional - this would (assuming the decision is not based on stereotypes of competence) presumably be based on one's own comfort level. Given that those professions rely on a certain level of comfort in the patient, I would say that sex-based discrimination is okay for one's own self -- i.e. telling someone else not to use a male gynecologist just because he's male is not okay. But in my mind, trying to suppress an honest emotion for a logical reason is neither healthy nor productive. Where comfort is part of the job, if the professional cannot deliver, I am not obligated to overlook that inability. This comes under the category of "being able to do the job" again, for me.


• Personal choice of other professionals - assuming that, unlike in the above case, one's comfort is not an essential part of the deal -- say, with a plumber or cashier or programmer -- then no, gender discrimination is not okay. Any choice must be made based on other criteria.


• Membership in professional organizations - Not acceptable. The League of Women Voters has male members; I see no reason why a Women in Science and Engineering group should exclude supportive men, nor a Men in Nursing group should exclude supportive women.


• (One thing you didn't quite touch on is religious organizations... As a sole practitioner pagan, it's not really my place to determine such things, though I will say that trying to introduce a man into an order of nuns would come under the same umbrella as the "comfort of the employees" case above, to me.)


• Membership in non-professional organisations (say, someone created a national men's-only ___ enthusiast association, or a chain of wholesale buying clubs, etc) - This is hairy. I'd say no, with the possibility of exceptions. If the organization could not function in a mixed-gender fashion -- my imagination fails me here -- and the purpose of it was not further discrimination (such as a nonprofit dedicated to abolishing womens' rights) then I think it would be acceptable to discriminate based on gender. I can't even start to come up with all the cases here, though, so I will have to say that it's not cut-and-dried. In most cases, though, such organizations do not require having only a single gender to operate, so I'd say discrimination is generally not acceptable here.


• Membership in local clubs - same as above. The fact that it's local and presumably smaller does not change the underlying reasoning.


• Attendance at large public events (non-sexual... say, a doll show that excluded men) - Not acceptable. Public should mean accessible to all, barring harm to the group at large, and I fail to see how simply being a particular gender would incur harm in that situation.


• Attendance at large public events which are gender based in some way (breast cancer awareness) - ditto above. If it's public, you open yourselves up to anyone who chooses to wander by. Any supportive person should be allowed, regardless of sex.


• Invitation to private sex-parties or other parties in which a primary purpose is to allow for same-sex flirtations - Here I really feel the distinction of public vs. private. For example, gay bars are public, and thus should (and most do) allow women in. In a private invitation, however, a controlled environment is implied, and exerting that control should not be seen as malicious. Again, the purpose yardstick: if a particular gender would defeat the purpose of the event by its simple presence, and that event is otherwise moral in nature, it is acceptable to exclude that gender in a private setting. To satisfy the moral obligation not to harm the one excluded, it is necessary to a) determine that the gathering is truly incapable of accommodating that gender and b) do one's best to ensure that the person's feelings are not trodden on in the process. But those elements are peripheral, however necessary they may be.


• Invitation to private non-sex-party gatherings for which the primary idea is to do "male" or "female" oriented things (whatever that means to the attendees) - I assume you mean bachelor/bachelorette parties and "Girls' Night Out" sorts of things. In a private setting, again, discrimination is appropriate if necessary. Frankly, I've known a few "Girl's Night Out" events where a man tagged along, and they were quite successful -- in fact, we delighted in seeing what we could talk about that would make him blush. With the participants involved, the presence of the opposite gender didn't make the event impossible... though with most bachelor parties etc. the comfort level of those involved would make it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to conduct the party at all. In many of these parties, the object is to have a good time, and comfort is essential to that... so see the above entry about medical professionals. (There's a connection you didn't expect to see -- bachelor parties and psychotherapy.)


• Invitation to any private gathering, regardless of purpose - a catch-all. For those events not covered above, I'd say that discrimination solely based on gender is not morally right. This is excluding those cases where the event requires a particular gender to operate, and is not otherwise morally objectionable. Old-fashioned hostesses used to be trained in what to do when more men showed up at a dinner party than women... they didn't turn the men away, they coped.
  Keep in mind that just because such discrimination is not morally right, I have no moral right myself to force a host to do otherwise. Try to persuade, yes, but not coerce or manipulate. The only case where I have full control over the situation is where I am the host.


• Personal attraction (dating, sex) - yes. Since comfort is essential, no one who makes me uncomfortable is able to perform the task; if I am uncomfortable about having sex with women, I am morally in the right to choose only men.


• Attendance at sexual/spousal abuse healing workshops (men excluded - remember that ones for men would be extremely rare) - Ouch. I have to apply the purpose rule again, in a few aspects: not only is it necessary not to harm those in such a group (which the presence of certain genders can do), comfort is essential as well. It's very sticky because introducing a man into a battered women's group can harm the female participants, while not providing support to a battered husband can harm him. So.... unless all the participants are comfortable with a mixed-gender situation, I'd say discrimination is acceptable -- with the caveat that it is not acceptable to deny anyone the help they need if some other option is available. If that is one-on-one counseling or some other alternative, fine. I shudder at the phrase separate-but-equal, but if mixing genders does active harm to those involved it is not morally correct to do so, and separate arrangements must be found which are acceptable to those involved. On the other side of the coin, if mixed gender is necessary to achieve the goal of the group (Bay Area Model Muggers comes to mind) then anyone who can't handle the mixed-gender format cannot dictate that one gender be excluded from that group.

Bah. That felt like an assignment for an ethics class. I hope I made myself sufficiently clear... I'm sure I'll never hear the end if I wasn't. ;)