Ok, lets say I prefer only male customer service representatives, front desk receptionists, only male grocery store check out clerks, only male baristas, hairstylists, tattoo artists, auto mechanics, chefs/cooks, restaurant servers, daycare providers, dog walkers, whatever.
Now, I only use businesses where my ‘consumer preference’ is ‘respected’, and there are so many others who have similarly strong preferences to me, that businesses begin to either gender bias their hiring, or offer specific locations that are gender locked, or offer me some kind of filter for non location based / scheduled / on demand enterprises.
Am I being sexist, or am I expressing my consumer preferences?
Are the businesses being sexist, or are they aligning business practices with consumer expectations?
What if femboys, queer men, trans men, well, they’re not men to me, I don’t want to see any of them, so I stop using businesses who hire them, or at least allow me some option to avoid them?
What if I also only want to interact with white, christian men?
Who are 25 to 45 years old?
… How do you draw the lines between ‘businesses reflecting consumer demand’ and ‘the inherent structure of society is bigoted and segregated’?
Why do you draw those lines, which lines do you draw or not draw?
None of those scenarios puts the customer at greater risk of being a victim of a violent or sexual crime, none of them put the employee in question alone with the customer in an unmonitored vehicle, easy line to draw
Tattoo artists do not generally have their customers alone in an unmonitored vehicle with the ability to relocate them easily against their will, neither do masseuses or any of your other examples. Weak comparisons, weak argument.
Either literally all or nearly all Uber/Lyft cars have cameras in them, for driver safety, for recording potential accidents, for being able to go the tape when some kind of customer dispute happens.
And I mean yeah, a tattoo artist of masseuse doesn’t have their work area in a car, but, you are in a constrained setting, you’re already on a bed/table, likely some degree of half naked… wouldn’t really be that hard to take someone from that level of restrained to more restrained and/or sedated, then just actually throw them in a car, or a basement, whatever.
It is already no problem for you to choose a male tattoo artist, a male hairstylist and a male dogwalker. Whereever you choose a single employee to work closely with you and where you are in a somewhat vulnerable position you can already choose. If for some reason you feel more at ease with male doctors, tattoo artists or hairstylists or massagist, noone is stopping you from only booking with a man.
Whereever you can be in a vulnerable position with an employee it makes sense that you can choose who that person is.
Ok so you also seem to be describing ‘being in a vulnerable position’ as a, or the ‘line’.
Can you define that explicitly, you know, as if it were part of a law?
I will note that tons of people have anxiety/trauma complexes that trigger in public, or in private, with people.of specific sexes, genders, races, expressed religions, etc… so… are all of those things fair game for things that can cause people to feel ‘in a vulnerable position’?
Some people don’t really even have any specific personal trauma, but are just bigotted and some way, and would tell you that… certain people with certain attributes in certain situations make them feel ‘vulnerable’.
I would say basically if the person is working on/with your body or if they have some form of physical power over you which is the case if you are getting in their car (and they could in theory lock you in/drive you somewhere else).
It is e.g. totally fine if a black person would prefer another black person as a hair stylist because they feel they know more about black hair. Same goes for a white person prefering a white hair stylist.
At a certain point you should probably ask yourself if you can still participate in society if your demands get too detailed. I would draw the line where the interaction is very unpersonal and takes place in a public setting. Everybody can have a one-minute exchange with any chashier. But as soon as the employee is going to work on your body or put you in a position where you can’t easily leave it’s fair to choose who works with you.
I know a lot of people who have a gender preference when it comes to doctors. Not just gynecologists, but any. I know people who’d only go to a male or female massage therapist. I know asians who’d only go to an asian hairdresser. These are all choices people make every day, we just don’t notice because we don’t filter it through an app.
As for bigotted people, I don’t think you’ll change their mind by forcing them to interact with you. If I was e.g. a hindu driver I might even feel safer knowing that people who hate my religion can choose not to be in my car. The safety concern goes both ways.
Ok, lets say I prefer only male customer service representatives, front desk receptionists, only male grocery store check out clerks, only male baristas, hairstylists, tattoo artists, auto mechanics, chefs/cooks, restaurant servers, daycare providers, dog walkers, whatever.
Now, I only use businesses where my ‘consumer preference’ is ‘respected’, and there are so many others who have similarly strong preferences to me, that businesses begin to either gender bias their hiring, or offer specific locations that are gender locked, or offer me some kind of filter for non location based / scheduled / on demand enterprises.
Am I being sexist, or am I expressing my consumer preferences?
Are the businesses being sexist, or are they aligning business practices with consumer expectations?
What if femboys, queer men, trans men, well, they’re not men to me, I don’t want to see any of them, so I stop using businesses who hire them, or at least allow me some option to avoid them?
What if I also only want to interact with white, christian men?
Who are 25 to 45 years old?
… How do you draw the lines between ‘businesses reflecting consumer demand’ and ‘the inherent structure of society is bigoted and segregated’?
Why do you draw those lines, which lines do you draw or not draw?
None of those scenarios puts the customer at greater risk of being a victim of a violent or sexual crime, none of them put the employee in question alone with the customer in an unmonitored vehicle, easy line to draw
… A tattoo artist or masseuse could not more easily sexually assault me than a grocery store clerk or dog walker?
What about a therapist vs an accountant, doing in office consults with either?
How about a bus driver or a pilot crew, flight attendants?
I am assuming the line you are trying to draw is something like … being in a confined space, and having less control over your ability to egress.
But you didn’t actually draw that line, so that’s just a guess on my part.
You just made a dubious claim and then used that to justify an undefined rule.
If you’d like to actually try to draw a line, that would be nice.
Tattoo artists do not generally have their customers alone in an unmonitored vehicle with the ability to relocate them easily against their will, neither do masseuses or any of your other examples. Weak comparisons, weak argument.
Unmonitored vehicle?
Either literally all or nearly all Uber/Lyft cars have cameras in them, for driver safety, for recording potential accidents, for being able to go the tape when some kind of customer dispute happens.
And I mean yeah, a tattoo artist of masseuse doesn’t have their work area in a car, but, you are in a constrained setting, you’re already on a bed/table, likely some degree of half naked… wouldn’t really be that hard to take someone from that level of restrained to more restrained and/or sedated, then just actually throw them in a car, or a basement, whatever.
Cool story
It is already no problem for you to choose a male tattoo artist, a male hairstylist and a male dogwalker. Whereever you choose a single employee to work closely with you and where you are in a somewhat vulnerable position you can already choose. If for some reason you feel more at ease with male doctors, tattoo artists or hairstylists or massagist, noone is stopping you from only booking with a man.
Whereever you can be in a vulnerable position with an employee it makes sense that you can choose who that person is.
Ok so you also seem to be describing ‘being in a vulnerable position’ as a, or the ‘line’.
Can you define that explicitly, you know, as if it were part of a law?
I will note that tons of people have anxiety/trauma complexes that trigger in public, or in private, with people.of specific sexes, genders, races, expressed religions, etc… so… are all of those things fair game for things that can cause people to feel ‘in a vulnerable position’?
Some people don’t really even have any specific personal trauma, but are just bigotted and some way, and would tell you that… certain people with certain attributes in certain situations make them feel ‘vulnerable’.
I would say basically if the person is working on/with your body or if they have some form of physical power over you which is the case if you are getting in their car (and they could in theory lock you in/drive you somewhere else).
It is e.g. totally fine if a black person would prefer another black person as a hair stylist because they feel they know more about black hair. Same goes for a white person prefering a white hair stylist. At a certain point you should probably ask yourself if you can still participate in society if your demands get too detailed. I would draw the line where the interaction is very unpersonal and takes place in a public setting. Everybody can have a one-minute exchange with any chashier. But as soon as the employee is going to work on your body or put you in a position where you can’t easily leave it’s fair to choose who works with you.
I know a lot of people who have a gender preference when it comes to doctors. Not just gynecologists, but any. I know people who’d only go to a male or female massage therapist. I know asians who’d only go to an asian hairdresser. These are all choices people make every day, we just don’t notice because we don’t filter it through an app.
As for bigotted people, I don’t think you’ll change their mind by forcing them to interact with you. If I was e.g. a hindu driver I might even feel safer knowing that people who hate my religion can choose not to be in my car. The safety concern goes both ways.