Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/37734
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

There are little inconsistencies in your explanation that allow for misinterpretation by others.

* * *

> Due to this, society traces its lineage through matrilineal lines.

By semantical definition of "sexism", this is sexism. It somehow considers your mother more definitive to your identity than your father.

Note that it's only sexist if men contribute. If, as an extreme example, every child is a genetic clone of its mother, and men do not actually contribute to the child's genes, then a human's _genetic_ lineage is purely matrilineal (but genetic lineage is not always the same as lineage, e.g. consider that you still want to trace who the father is, or even just adoption).  
If you're looking for hereditary diseases and only look at the matrilineal line, then you're not being sexist. You're simply excluding the father's line because the child didn't inherit any genes from them. You're not excluding the father because you think men are unworthy.

* * *

> However, someone has told me that this concept is sexist toward women because it suggests that a female's only worth is her fertility

That is a logical fallacy. Your concept states that a woman's fertility _is_ valuable. Your concept does not state that a woman's fertility is the _only_ valuable thing about her. It doesn't even state that it's the _most_ valuable thing about her.

> and that having kids is the most important thing to them

The same argument applies here, it's a logical fallacy.

I really want to keep my left hand. I'm right handed, so my left hand is not the most important thing to me (obviously, my right hand is more important). **The fact that I'd rather not lose my left hand does not mean that my left hand is the most important thing to me.**

> Is that accurate or am I overthinking it?

It's not accurate. Whoever pointed out the alleged sexism has applied wrongly inverted logic.

* * *

> How would I know this for a fact when something is prejudiced or not?

That's a broad question. I'd hazard a guess to say that this is the #1 question that the (western) world is currently trying to find an objective and universally applicable answer to.

Prejudice is not black and white. While we can coin a definition that applies in most common cases, those definitions becomes less clear for fringe cases. Keep in mind the definition of [**discrimination**](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/discriminate):

> 1. Recognize a distinction; differentiate.
> 2. Make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age.

When we say call things like racism or sexism discrimination, we are referring to definition 2. WHen definition 2 applies, so does definition 1. But the opposite isn't true: there are cases of (gender) discrimination where definition 1 applies, but not definition 2. For example:

- A gynaecologist refusing to book an appointment for a male patient.
- A nurse who writes down the gender of a patient on the patient chart.
- Segregating bathrooms/locker rooms by gender.
- An animal that only eats human testicles (since it inherently attacks men, not women).

All of these examples are cases of gender discrimination, yet they are not labeled as immoral behavior.

**So how do I detect sexism?**

Simply put, randomize all the genders in your story. Does the story still make sense? Does changing two people's gender (MM, MF, FM, FF) inherently change their relationship or power dynamic?

If changing the genders changes something that is not related to the physical differences of the genders; then it's sexist (definition 2). Some examples:

> "I changed the gender of my main character, and now the story doesn't work because they don't need to go out to buy tampons and thus don't run into the story villain who (for some unexplained reason) is a tampon salesperson."

That's not sexism. That's related to the physical difference between men and women. Weird story arc, but not inherently sexist.

> "I changed the gender of my main character, and now the story doesn't work because they don't need to go out to buy tampons **because men don't do the shopping** ; and they therefore don't run into the story villain who (for some unexplained reason) is a tampon salesperson."

**That is sexism.**

> "I changed the gender of my main character, and now the story doesn't work because **women can't rule a nation**".

**That is sexism.**

> "I changed the gender of my main character, and now the story doesn't work as well because "Bling Queen" doesn't rhyme like "Bling King" does".

That's not sexism. The rhyme (or lack thereof) does not in any way change the fact that someone rules the nation. It simply means that you have to find a different name that works for the same reason ("Sheen Queen").

_I understand that the examples are simple, but examples are inherently supposed to be clear-cut for the sake of clarity._

Original score: 5