Two Posts
Ya know though, going back to what Nikolaj was saying about discrimination on the basis of physical handicap. As I've said, I get hassled by the police several times a year because I am talking to myself. Just minding my own business, not bothering anyone, but I'm talking to myself, and the police feel the need to hassle me for it.
I bet they never stop anyone just for being in a wheelchair. Why not? I think I'd be more afraid of the guy in the wheelchair. He could have a thermonuclear bomb hidden in that thing for all they know. Shouldn't they stop him and search him, just to be on the safe side?
I bet physically handicapped people rarely if ever get stopped by the police for their handicap, so why do I? Do they treat all handicapped people the same way?
Actually, you're not going back to the people with the physical handicap, you're going back to your own 'handicap'. That, and you are repeating yourself on a point that has already been discussed (see page 2). This is not meant offensive btw, just trying to not keep us repeating the same thing, because then I will lose interest in the thread. (And I don't want that because the topic is extremely interesting, even though we have deviated somewhat from it)
I thought that sounded familiar when I was typing it last night. Sorry, it's a thing with the psychosis. I will often repeat the same sentence twice in a conversation and not even realize it.
Since I'm apparently not capable of getting us back on that topic, how about you get us back onto people with physical handicaps?
I figured that much, that's why I emphasized that I didn't mean offense.
The topic is actually the racial discrimination, which went to discrimination on all fronts.
So far we had racial discrimination, discrimination of mentally and physically handicapped.
We've only handled the way the human mind learns and thinks (by grouping things) and that recognizing difference isn't the same as discriminating.
I think that thus far we've only handled negative discrimination, but there is also positive discrimination. There is also discrimination on age we could handle maybe.
I also just saw that discrimination comes from the Latin discrimen, which only means distinction. But we (the society) seems to have changed the meaning to treating someone less or more because of a distinction. Which has the potential to make people think that distinction itself is wrong.
Ah, definitions.
I've never really thought about it before, but my best guess is that a Nerd is anyone lacking social skills sufficient to the task of becoming popular. There are other reasons for people not to be popular, but this is the one that creates the "Nerd" category.
For a more authoritative definition, see Dictionary.com.
Discrimination most literally means making a distinction between two objects. In psychology it is the opposite of generalization, and a necessary cognitive function--that we can all some things chocolate and some things vanilla and mean different things by the two words. In American jurisprudence, discrimination is closely associated with prejudice and segregation, because in order to exercise either one must first discriminate people into a category ("black", "gay", "handicapped", "nerd") and then to segregate isolate (either physically or socially) those in the category and to be prejudicial generalize details (usually negative) to the entire category ("blacks are lazy", "gays are child molestors", "handicapped people are incompetent", "nerds are stupid"). The only valid non-prejudicial thing you can say about a discriminated category is that members of that category all exhibit the trait which is the basis for the category (blacks have dark skin and come from Africa, gays are attracted to members of the same sex, the handicapped are have medical or other problems that prevent them from doing some tasks which are considered normal, nerds are socially inept). The problem in jurisprudence is that we live under the dictum of Brown vs. Board of Education, the famous "separate is not equal", which in essence means that if you divide people into categories and provide goods or services based on the categories in which you have placed them, you are engaged in illegally discriminatory prejudicial segregationist conduct--at least, you are of those in what is deemed the minority group object. For some reason it is not illegal to separate Spanish-speaking children into Spanish-speaking classes, to separate handicapped children to disability-enabling facilities and provide them with government resources, to give jobs and school openings to less qualified black applicants instead of more qualified white applicants, and so on. This is usually viewed as "corrective" discrimination, attempting to level the playing field by identifying an unfairly disadvantaged group and giving unfair advantages to them. It's still discrimination, and it's still prejudicial and discriminatory, but it's not considered wrong.
--M. J. Young
to give jobs and school openings to less qualified black applicants instead of more qualified white applicants, and so on
Yeah, I think the best way I've ever heard this summed up was "Affirmative action, reparations, quotas. No matter what you call it, all it means is that another qualified American won't get a job, just because he's the wrong color. Isn't that what we wanted to get away from?"
Best solution if it can be arranged is to just not tell the admissions officer/HR guy the skin color of the applicant.
The thing with this is that I had a friend (white) who was trying to get on the police department. There was one position, and two applicants. The other applicant was black. Because of the quotas, the black applicant got the job, EVEN THOUGH my friend scored higher on the test.
So, racism is taken care of, everyone has a job, and things are made right, right? WRONG!!! What this means is that there is a police officer out there, responsible for your safety and mine, who is LESS QUALIFIED than my friend. Is that REALLY how you want the world to work?
That makes sense to me.Best solution if it can be arranged is to just not tell the admissions officer/HR guy the skin color of the applicant.
I understand the reasoning for affirmative action. In essence, the idea is that members of minorities are less qualified because they, and their families, have been discriminated against in the past, leaving them less qualified in the present. Thus by discriminating in their favor we theoretically level the playing field.
Part of the problem with that reasoning is that the fact that the playing field has been uneven in general in the past does not mean that it has been uneven in particular. When you make the decision that Ivy League universities must admit a specific percentage of black applicants to remedy the inequity that they have always admitted mostly white applicants in the past, the problem is "remedied" by taking scholarship positions away from impoverished white applicants and giving them to the children of wealthy blacks. Black does not equal impoverished, nor even discriminated against. Blacks excel in the fields of sports and entertainment, and do quite well in many other fields, including politics (how many major American cities have never had a black mayor?).
Certainly there has been an unequal distribution of wealth and opportunity in this country since the Civil War. It has been equalizing. At present, programs which benefit blacks based solely on race penalize impoverished and sometimes middle class whites, and do not penalize wealthy and middle class blacks.
A better system is needed.
--M. J. Young
http://www.parentdish.com/2009/03/02/mother-sentenced-for-attacking-sex-offender/
That link is to a story about a mother who beat a registered sex offender with a baseball bat, for merely talking to her daughter. I might be in the minority on this, but I think that's very wrong. Sex offender or not, there's nothing wrong with just talking to anyone. It made me think of Plunger, my 2 year old neighbor. Imagine if her father had reacted that way. When I saw her standing on the sidewalk, I got down and asked "Hey, where's your mommy and daddy at, huh?" (Obviously, I had to know which direction to walk her back to) She pointed towards their apartment. Imagine if her father had seen me talking to his 2 year old daughter, and beaten me up, for the "crime" of talking to her, with the intention of taking her home.
What does this have to do with discrimination, you ask? Well, that's discrimination against someone for their past. Can't we learn from our mistakes and move past them? The sex offender had been in jail, so his debt to society was paid. The story said that he was just talking to the woman's daughter, and she attacked him with a baseball bat. There's something wrong with that.
And yes, I know I mentioned a small amount of prejudice towards a sex offender who was living next door to me. However, he's allow to live, he's allowed to not be harassed for his past crimes. If I saw him talking to Plunger, I would keep an eye on him, but wouldn't take any kind of action unless it was needed. Just talking is allowed.
No, I agree with you.
The problem with sex offenders is the recidivism--very few of them ever reform, and most of them are back in court on similar charges rather quickly after having been released. Further, they tend to escalate--they start as watchers. Some eventually wind up as serial killers, but they almost all started as watchers. That's one of those backwards statistics--like most heroin addicts and crack users started with alcohol and marijuana, but that doesn't mean that most alcohol and marijuana users will wind up addicted to heroin or cocaine, only that escalation happens in many cases. Thus there is a very real and legitimate fear that a sex offender will strike again. That in fact is why we have Megan's Law in New Jersey and its copies elsewhere (the law requiring that sex offenders register their presence in a community, and that information be made available publicly), specifically so that people can be wary of them.
However, the "sex offender" label is put on too many people, and frequently without sufficient information for the public to get a reasonable understanding. For example, if a girl is getting changed in front of an uncovered window and a guy stops to look, he's a "Peeping Tom"; but if a guy is getting changed in front of that window and a girl stops to watch, he's an exhibitionist.
I know a couple guys who use too many illegal substances. One is maybe four to six months older than the other, and at the time of these events they were eighteen and nineteen. A twenty-two year old girl who had recently broken up with the older brother of one of them invited them to her house for a party, where the alcohol flowed freely, and they both got very drunk, as did the girl's fourteen year old sister and her friend. The older of the two guys passed out, and does not know what actually happened after that.
However, a few days later he was picked up by the police. They told him he was being questioned in relation to the rapes of those girls. He said he knew nothing about it, that he had passed out, but they insisted that he had had sex with them. They then played him a tape of the other fourteen year old--not the sister--describing how the fourteen year old sister had come on to the two boys and had sex with both of them at once, giving details of the event. The police continued to detain the boy, and told him that they knew he had done it, and as soon as he confessed they would let him go. So he let them record him recounting the events as they were desribed on the tape--events of which he had no recollection, but to which he was at that point willing to confess just to get out of the police station where he had been held for hours.
A lot of people were convicted of a lot of crimes, including the older sister, her boyfriend, and both boys. However, New Jersey has a "four year" rule: if you are not more than four years older than a minor with whom you have sexual contact, it can be consensual, but if you are four years or more older then it is statutory rape. The younger of the two boys made the cutoff and received a slap on the wrist for a misdemeanor offense, while the older went to prison and is now officially labeled a sex offender. His offense is that when he was completely drunk and possibly unconscious he may or may not have had sex with a girl about four years younger than himself who was already having sex with his friend and encouraged him to get involved. He poses no real threat to minors, but he will wear that label for the rest of his life.
It is also quite well established among psychologists that those who are genuine sex offenders have very narrow proclivities. Even among pedophiles, age and gender are usually very particular, and sometimes details such as race and hair style are part of the package. A person who is labeled a sex offender thanks to a date rape charge when he was in high school is not at all a threat to elementary school girls.
So I find that the label "sex offender" is not useful, and agree that it creates a new category against which we discriminate with impunity. Again, we need a better system.
--M. J. Young
Yeah, they've recently done the same thing in Belgium (like, this week or the previous one), putting up a site online where you can see if there is a sex offender living near you.
There is a large debate going on, because the people get labeled instantly and most of the time start to feel even less secure then before and actually shoved even more into that category. Thus they have even lesser chances of coming out of it.
There is also a fear for what seems to have happened in England (if I remember the news correctly) when they first did that, with public executions from the locals. People getting shot at because they are on that list etc, etc.
I'm divided on the subject, they deserved it, that's true, but it isn't helping them, it's actually working against them. They are even more labeled. If they would want to break with their crimes there is less chance, because everyone calls you a sex offender. And now they know where they live.
That while knowing that in this country one in six people has been sexually abused by family.
The police continued to detain the boy, and told him that they knew he had done it, and as soon as he confessed they would let him go. So he let them record him recounting the events as they were desribed on the tape--events of which he had no recollection, but to which he was at that point willing to confess just to get out of the police station where he had been held for hours.
Now you know where I get my aversion to law enforcement officers. What started out (in my case) as a kid making firecrackers and blowing up 2 liter bottles in the woods got turned into a drug dealing militia member terrorist by the police once it hit the news. Something I learned from all of this? That thing between your nose and your chin? KEEP IT SHUT!!!!!!!
Two Posts
Ya know, I just realized a form of prejudice that I bet no one ever thought of.
When my sister got married a few years ago, I feared for her safety. I asked if she was OK. Her husband is one of the kindest, gentlest guys I have ever known. But there's still that chance that he's actually a real jerk. What I finally realized is that, having fought with my sister several times, I think her beating him would be far more likely.
However, it was just the love of an older brother. I think her husband understood my motivation far better than my sister did. He seems like the kind of guy that would respect an older brother for looking out for his sister. I gave him my official trust about 6 months ago, and things have been getting better since then.
Anyway, the prejudice of someone who is not from his family. Just a thought.
(Doing Therapy)
good one! I think that is in line with the other ones we talked about. Fear of the unknown.
(Boy, I'm starting to sound like a teacher more and more. This isn't what I meant, I'm here to learn, not to teach. It just happens that since recently I am a teacher for protestant religion on Monday and am in something I think you guys call kindergarten from Tuesday till Thursday...)
in something I think you guys call kindergarten from Tuesday till Thursday...)
Kindergarten is the first year of school here. It's for children who are about 5 or 6 years old. Are you teaching, or a student in the class? If you're a student in the class, then you're not in kindergarten. The word is derived from German if I'm not mistaken. It means "Garden of Children." Or, where children grow.
I'm teaching. But the first year of school here in Belgium is from age 2,5-3years old. I'm with the 3-4 year olds since today!
OK, that's what we call Preschool.
Alright, then now, back on topic.
I'm watching one of the 1980s Twilight Zone episodes, and there are kids that take a standardized, government test. Here's the kicker though. If the child's IQ is too high they kill the kid. The test requires a serum that forces you to answer the test truthfully. It would be pretty easy for a smart kid to fail a test like that on purpose, after all.
That's an unusual form of discrimination. You'd think they would kill the stupid kids. I wonder why the society would do that....
(Doing Therapy)
Two Posts
Now that I think about it, they probably do kill the stupid kids. Still though, it wouldn't be hard for a child to miss 1 out of 5 questions on purpose. An 80% would probably be an acceptable score.
(Doing therapy)
I'm surprised no one else commented on why the society in that Twilight Zone episode would kill the smart kids. Any thoughts on that at all?
I had somehow missed this reply.
And I don't really know what to answer here, except that in an addendum of the "screwtape letters" from CS Lewis that I have, there is a comment on 'democracy' doing just this discrimination. By making everyone the same you take a way the ability of the individual kid that's strong in an area to shine, because it would hurt the other, less gifted (in that area). Or something like that.
But I've got to go now :)
Just an aside about sex offenders, and Plunger, my 2 year old neighbor. When I led her home, I took her by the hand and walked with her, instead of picking her up and carrying her. Carrying her would have been much easier, but I thought that taking her by the hand would be less I would need to explain if asked. We live in a messed up world where a guy has to make a choice like that to keep himself out of trouble for trying to help someone.
But anyway, back to the current topic of discrimination on basis of intellect, I saw on the news some years ago that we are actually doing something similar in our own society. Certain books were considered for being banned, because the described people living in wealth and fortune. There was one I remember about a yacht race. It was being considered to be banned, because yachts are elitist, and only the rich and powerful could get them. It was considered damaging to the minds of the poor kids who would read that book...... Which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Without books like that, the poor kids have nothing to dream about. No motivation to get up and get going.
I didn't bother with the Twighlight Zone episode, because I sometimes find Twilight Zone stories rather contrived, and that seems like one of them. It appeared to be suggesting that we live in a world in which high intelligence is punished--and members of the Triple Nine Club might agree. But then, at some level the question is what we want our intelligent people to do within our society. I think I can say without fear of offending anyone that we very rarely have elected the most intelligent people to our top public offices. We tend to choose the most charismatic, for example. I'm inclined to suggest that the last President we had who was truly intelligent was probably Jimmy Carter, and he got himself elected by playing dumb (which hurt him in the long term). Of course, before that Nixon was truly intelligent, which may be why we have avoided electing intelligent people since then--one at least hopes we decided that it would be better to elect truly moral people, but we can debate whether we've done that, either.
We also reward organizational and managerial skills. It's been noted that the average Masters of Business Administration (M.B.A.) makes more than the average Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), because the latter tend to dead end in research and development or teaching and the former wind up in high executive positions.
All of which is to say that we really don't value high intellect as much as we pretend.
The Twilight Zone episode was apparently making a comment about egalitarianism, that the world would be more "equal" if the smart people were removed so that the people of ordinary intellect would not be overshadowed. This, though, would have seemed more sinister to the Cold War America that saw the first-run episodes, because they lived in a world in which having brilliant rocket scientists was the great hope for our survival, if our weapons technology could stay a step ahead of "theirs". So people of that time would have been shocked at the suggestion that equality be achieved by sacrificing the smart people, and the point would have been made that we really do not want a completely equal society in that sense.
--M. J. Young
Ya know, just something I thought interesting about my gay neighbor. I had a single father and his 5 year old son living next door to me for almost a year. Not only did they not have a problem with the psychotic episodes (Which at that time, were at least an hour of screaming) They actually became some of the best friends I've ever had. The father actually asked me to babysit the 5 year old son.
I have no doubt that the father told his son to pray for me (He was just that kind of guy) and it was never really much of an issue after I explained it to him.
Yet, a gay neighbor, who understands prejudice better than most folks, was terrified at episodes which were a fraction of that. Weird.....
(Doing Therapy)
There's another form of discrimination that I cannot stand, but I can kind of understand. Discrimination against smokers. In the state of Ohio, as well as many others, it is illegal to smoke inside a public building. Period. No more smoking sections, just no smoking, period. (Unless it's a privately owned business, but that's something else)
In some states, if you have kids, you can't even smoke inside your own house. I can understand this, no one forced me to start smoking, but it is still a form of discrimination nonetheless.
I don't think I really realized the effect that the second hand smoke had on people, until I met MJ in person. It really aggravated his asthma, to the point that I got mildly concerned I might have to call emergency services. It's still a pain in the butt though, to not be able to smoke inside anywhere.
Something about it though that I find somewhat ironic is that nicotine is a natural anti-psychotic. This is why people tend to spazz out when they quit smoking. They don't have the anti-psychotic anymore. Being psychotic, I can certainly attest to the anti-psychotic properties. When I make an attempt to quit smoking, the psychosis always goes into overdrive for a few days.
I don't know, we were talking about all kinds of discrimination, I just thought I would throw that one into the mix.
I'm not sure that that's discrimination. That's concern for the health of the smokers and the non-smokers. A smoker might choose it, yet a non smoker doesn't choose to smoke passively. Little children, babies, people, like Mark, with asthma. They need to be considered. So seeing that they are different, we need to keep them in account.
I see the point you're making Nikolaj. However, you're obviously not a smoker. If you were a smoker, you would see it as discrimination.
When I went to truck driving school, there was a class that we had which was about 3 1/2 hours long, with no breaks. Not even bathroom breaks were allowed. About an hour into the class, someone started tapping a pencil on the table. You could hear it. Later, more people were tapping pencils on the table. Soon I was tapping a pencil on the table. When the class ended, the instructor said "I can always tell the smokers in this class, because they always start tapping pencils on the table."
I can see why it could be called discriminatory; but then, not all things that are discriminatory are wrong.
For example, it is discriminatory to say that people who habitually drink and who do not have the sense not to drive while they are drinking cannot have a driver's license. That's discrimination: people who are drunk may not drive, and people who drive drunk may not own cars or drive when they are sober.
It is discriminatory to say that children cannot drive.
It is discriminatory to say that you can't teach yourself to fly a plane, and you may not fly a plane if you have not taken lessons with a qualified instructor. It is discriminatory to say that you cannot practice medicine, accounting, law, nursing, or hairdressing without a license, and you cannot get a license without passing a test.
Concerning cigarette smoke, the new research is going into what is being called third-hand smoke: the impact on children and the elderly and respiratory patients and the public at large of the irritants and carcinogens which collect in environmental surfaces from smoke. If you're a smoker, your clothes smell of it, and your car may smell of it, and your home may smell of it, and even when you are not smoking others are exposed to the damage done by the poisons that leave that smell around.
I can imagine someone who is so freaked about bugs that as soon as he gets to work he takes out a can of Raid and sprays his cubicle. I think that the people in the surrounding cubicles would have reason to be concerned about their exposure to the poisons in the bug spray. He could argue on his own behalf that he is far more afraid of the bugs that would otherwise bother him than he is of the poison he is breathing, but I don't think he would be permitted to continue that sort of conduct for any length of time. That would be discrimination, of course, firing someone because they insist on poisoning the air in the office to keep the bugs out.
Indeed, there is something inherently discriminatory about incarcerating sociopaths. Just because they think it's fine to steal and kill and destroy is no reason why we ought to impinge upon their freedom to do so.
--M. J. Young
Like I said, you're not a smoker. If you were a smoker, you'd see it differently.
If you were an alcoholic driver, you might see the question of whether people who drive drunk ought to have their licenses revoked differently.
If you were a pedophile, you might see the question of whether adults ought to be allowed to have sex with children differently.
If you were a ten-year-old, you might see the rules about children not being able to purchase alcohol differently.
If you were a sociopath, you might see the question of incarceration of murderers differently.
Smoking is a category you voluntarily joined. You knew at the time that there would be costs. You're old enough that you can't claim the health risks to the smoker were not known to you when you started. I understand that it is not easy to quit. However, if you find the discrimination that irksome, consider it one more incentive to quit.
--M. J. Young
Disneyland used to refuse admission to male guests with long hair. That means you would never get in there. That's discrimination. You choose to grow your hair long. Would you think it unfair that they refused you admission because you had long hair, or would you pull out a pair of scissors and snip off the ponytail? See what I mean?
No, I don't. Because how does having a ponytail hurt others?
Well, my point was that it is discrimination for something that the person chose to do. He chose to grow his hair long. I chose to start smoking. That's all.
That's not all, because with that, you also chose to put harmful elements in the air of those around you, making the air around them dangerous. (As your example with Mark and his Astma well proves).
You might as well choose to (and I'm going off the scale, I know) empty a gun in public, shoot everybody at school. That's also your choice, but just because it's a choice you made, does it justify it?
I'm not trying to turn this in a pro/contra discussion about smoking, but I do want to illustrate that there is a reason for the discrimination, and as far as I can see it is sound. The manner in which it is handled might be another thing. But I don't know about that.
Nikolaj, the ONLY way you could turn this into a pro-contra discussion is if you took the pro side. I am against smoking. I wouldn't wish this horror on someone that I hated. If I had one wish, it would be to go back in time and beat the living daylights out of my 18 year old self who started smoking. All I am saying is it's a pain in the ass that I can't smoke inside anywhere.
It's the Indian's gift to the white man. He taught paleface to smoke. "You take away our land, we give you unbreakable addiction." Tobacco has been avenging the Indians for centuries. Of course, the Indians also gave us Marijuana, Cocaine, Peyote and Magic Mushrooms, so maybe it wasn't entirely bad.
Speaking of which though, I find it extremely strange that tobacco, which is very harmful and has virtually no medical value is legal, and Marijuana, which is far less harmful and has proven medical value is illegal. Could it be BECAUSE the Marijuana has medical value?????? You'd think they would make the very harmful substance with no medical value illegal.
Two Posts
And yes, I understand about the second hand smoke and yadda yadda yadda. However, just because you understand why something is done doesn't mean you have to like it or accept it.
Honestly, if it was up to me, only current smokers would be allowed to buy cigarettes. You would have to prove that you were already a smoker, and get a permit to buy cigarettes. That way, no one else could start. If a smoker wanted to quit, they turn in their permit and they can never buy cigarettes again. Then they wouldn't have a choice but to quit. I just think it's a pain in the ass that I can't smoke inside. THAT'S ALL!!!!! (Not yelling, just trying to make my point loud and clear)
Ya know, a really obvious form of discrimination that we haven't touched on is gender discrimination. That conversation with Lauren brought it to my head.
If a man's jeans are too tight, "He's really put on weight."
If a woman's jeans are too tight "She's trying to be sexy."
If a man and woman get into a fight, and the man wins, "He just beat up a poor, defenseless woman."
If the man loses, "He just got his ass kicked by a girl."
On the other side, if the man beats up the woman, even if she started the fight, she is a "Victim of brutality."
If the woman wins "She must be a lesbian"
My personal favorite though is the sexual harassment issue. I was subjected to sexual harassment at almost every job I've ever had. The thing is, men are supposed to grin and bear it. I got into trouble with that with a lady I worked with. I have reason to believe that my accuser is a delusional psychotic, but that's neither here nor there.
When the manager (female) confronted me about it, she outright refused to listen to my side of the story, saying "I don't really care, because she could have a lawsuit."
I told the manager "The law works both ways, I could have a lawsuit too."
That never occurred to that manager. In the process of telling me about it, the manager sexually harassed me saying "I would rather have her than you."
It goes both ways, and the women never consider that fact.
I agree that there is a great deal of gender-based discrimination, and not all of it is good. (Insert appropriate emoticon here--well, of course we want gender-based discrimination, because we do want to be able to tell who are the boys and who are the girls, and I think most of us still want separate public restrooms.)
I should note though, that this might not be so:
In the process of telling me about it, the manager sexually harassed me saying "I would rather have her than you."
If I say that I would rather have Bob than Bill, that's obviously not gender discrimination; it's individual preference. If I say I would rather have Lauren than John, that is still not gender discrimination, unless my reason for wanting Lauren rather than John is that Lauren is a girl, and being a girl is not relevant to the purpose.
That is, if I say I'd rather have a girl on bass guitar than a guy, that's gender discrimination, because the point is whether they can play bass well and look good on stage, and either can presumably do that. If, though, I say that I'd rather have a female vocalist than a male vocalist, that probably is not discriminatory, as it is an artistic judgment--not significantly different from saying I would rather have a lead guitar solo than a bass guitar solo here.
If I say that I want men in the tools department and women in the lingerie department, that might be discriminatory--but it might not be, if I can show that people who buy tools are more likely to trust the advice of a man on the subject, and people who buy lingerie are more likely to trust the advice of a woman there.
If your supervisor perceived that the woman she preferred over you sold more product, or related better with the customers, or got more work done during her shift, or did anything measurably better or even subjectively better than you, she would be well within her rights to tell you that she would rather have the woman than you. The only situation in which that is gender discrimination is if she would rather have the woman because she arbitrarily prefers women. She is free to prefer women as long as the preference is not arbitrary (there is some advantage in the job to being a woman), not sexual (the advantage cannot be that she is attracted to women), and is relevant (the advantage can be shown to matter to the business).
Didn't we mention gender bias already? I remember recently recalling the point that a man who is seen undressing by a woman glancing through his window can be charged as an exhibitionist, but a man who by glancing through her window sees a woman undressing can be charged as a voyeur (Peeping Tom). The law does not always cut both ways.
--M. J. Young