Is it okay to discriminate by sex when appointing a sex discrimination commissioner?

[Metaphor]

So when you write "[t]he first is that in the entire time the office has existed, only women have been appointed," there is an underlying assumption of equal probabilities of a man or woman being most qualified for the office.

No, there isn't. In fact, I already said that it on its own it isn't actual evidence. Indeed, in other threads, I've asked people explicitly and repeatedly why they think the underlying demographic of a country is any kind of useful starting point for trying to understand whether discrimination has occurred.

Like I wrote already to you, in theory, maybe, in practice, maybe not. Along those lines, I see that Athena keeps asking you a question about which men are qualified but you can't answer.

Huh? I'm not doing the selection. I haven't drawn up selection criteria. I don't know the field, and I never claimed to.

I can't think of any women who qualify either, because we haven't discussed what it means to qualify.

Wouldn't you know of one if he were qualified?

Would I? Why would I? I don't know any women who are qualified either. Does that mean nobody is qualified?

I will extend that question, for all the years of sex discrimination officers, name a more qualified male candidate than the one appointed. Can you do it? If not, is this evidence of absence?

Maybe the person chosen was the best person in every case. Maybe the person chosen wasn't even the best woman in any case.

Why do you want to turn this into a debate about the history of the office? I believe there was probably discrimination and you're agnostic on that issue. If I were wrong on the history of the office that wouldn't change my conviction that you shouldn't discriminate based on sex.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Like I wrote already to you, in theory, maybe, in practice, maybe not. Along those lines, I see that Athena keeps asking you a question about which men are qualified but you can't answer.

Huh? I'm not doing the selection. I haven't drawn up selection criteria. I don't know the field, and I never claimed to.

I can't think of any women who qualify either, because we haven't discussed what it means to qualify.

Wouldn't you know of one if he were qualified?

Would I? Why would I? I don't know any women who are qualified either. Does that mean nobody is qualified?

If you don't know and I don't know, then this conversation about a discrimination allegation and how to measure it is completely useless.

Thanks a lot for dragging me into this with your op!

 

[Metaphor]

Huh? I'm not doing the selection. I haven't drawn up selection criteria. I don't know the field, and I never claimed to.

I can't think of any women who qualify either, because we haven't discussed what it means to qualify.

Wouldn't you know of one if he were qualified?

Would I? Why would I? I don't know any women who are qualified either. Does that mean nobody is qualified?

If you don't know and I don't know, then this conversation about a discrimination allegation and how to measure it is completely useless.

Thanks a lot for dragging me into this with your op!

You're the one who won't let it go. You're obsessed with proving I'm wrong to believe that there has probably been discrimination by sex in the choice of Sex Discrimination Commissioner. You seem to believe I must know what the qualifications are in order to ascertain whether there's been discrimination or not, but that's absurd. I don't know what a qualified candidate for highway roadkill scraper looks like but if the position description said 'no women will be considered' then I can be certain that they're discriminating by sex.

But I've said repeatedly it isn't central to the philosophical questions I posed in my OP. This is often something people do: they go from the specific to the general in order to set the scene.

 

[bilby]

The Sex Discrimination Commissioner is appointed specifically to oversee and uphold the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth). Obviously, any appointee would have to be committed to overseeing and upholding the Act, and if you had made public statements, for example, approving of sex discrimination in employment, then you are obviously unsuitable.

But the gender of the appointee is surely irrelevant.

Indeed, the Act also forbids discrimination on sexual orientation or pregnancy status, but it is surely not the case that only a pregnant woman of a minority sexual orientation is suitable.

What I have been trying to make clear is that there is a schism between the major parties in our country regarding how many civil rights a woman may exercise. As long as the position is an appointment, it can at times be an appointment of the party and that would severely restrict women's rights. That would be the Republican party. We have demonstrated in our country that our citizens somehow are blind to the interests of the Republican party or at least large factions within that party and they sometimes elect Republicans. So...when that happens, you get a lifeless commissioner who busies him/her/self with undoing the anti discrimination laws as best he/she can from the appointed position. This phenomenon greatly expanded and some feel it started with the administration of Andrew Jackson. and his spoils system. For those who do not understand how it works....TO THE ELECTORAL VICTORS GO THE SPOILS. From that point forward the game got real dirty and today many commissions and secretary positions in government are busy negative engineering the laws of the land for their party. We know this is true but we still try to keep the faith and think it is alright. That is what I was talking about.

This thread is about an Australian Commonwealth Government position. The US, The Republican Party, and the problems with the (completely different) US political system are of absolutely no relevance whatsoever.

If you don't know anything about the actual topic of the thread, then don't post. Trying to derail the thread into a discussion of an unrelated nation you DO know something about would be bad enough if the USA hardly got a mention in this forum; but given that the VAST majority of threads in PD are US-centric, trying to hijack a non-US thread into a discussion of US politics is truly despicable. Please stop it.

 

[fromderinside]

What I have been trying to make clear is that there is a schism between the major parties in our country regarding how many civil rights a woman may exercise. As long as the position is an appointment, it can at times be an appointment of the party and that would severely restrict women's rights. That would be the Republican party. We have demonstrated in our country that our citizens somehow are blind to the interests of the Republican party or at least large factions within that party and they sometimes elect Republicans. So...when that happens, you get a lifeless commissioner who busies him/her/self with undoing the anti discrimination laws as best he/she can from the appointed position. This phenomenon greatly expanded and some feel it started with the administration of Andrew Jackson. and his spoils system. For those who do not understand how it works....TO THE ELECTORAL VICTORS GO THE SPOILS. From that point forward the game got real dirty and today many commissions and secretary positions in government are busy negative engineering the laws of the land for their party. We know this is true but we still try to keep the faith and think it is alright. That is what I was talking about.

This thread is about an Australian Commonwealth Government position. The US, The Republican Party, and the problems with the (completely different) US political system are of absolutely no relevance whatsoever.

If you don't know anything about the actual topic of the thread, then don't post. Trying to derail the thread into a discussion of an unrelated nation you DO know something about would be bad enough if the USA hardly got a mention in this forum; but given that the VAST majority of threads in PD are US-centric, trying to hijack a non-US thread into a discussion of US politics is truly despicable. Please stop it.

OK. So I'll take this space to respond to Metaphor on behalf of Don2 (Don1 revised). Don't make presumptions. If the appointee is biased then jump on him/her (since I don't know the sex of the appointee). Remember evidence, not rational presumption based.

 

[Toni]

Huh? I'm not doing the selection. I haven't drawn up selection criteria. I don't know the field, and I never claimed to.

I can't think of any women who qualify either, because we haven't discussed what it means to qualify.

Wouldn't you know of one if he were qualified?

Would I? Why would I? I don't know any women who are qualified either. Does that mean nobody is qualified?

If you don't know and I don't know, then this conversation about a discrimination allegation and how to measure it is completely useless.

Thanks a lot for dragging me into this with your op!

You're the one who won't let it go. You're obsessed with proving I'm wrong to believe that there has probably been discrimination by sex in the choice of Sex Discrimination Commissioner. You seem to believe I must know what the qualifications are in order to ascertain whether there's been discrimination or not, but that's absurd. I don't know what a qualified candidate for highway roadkill scraper looks like but if the position description said 'no women will be considered' then I can be certain that they're discriminating by sex.

But I've said repeatedly it isn't central to the philosophical questions I posed in my OP. This is often something people do: they go from the specific to the general in order to set the scene.

If there were a commission being formed to ensure that the rights of gay men and women, would the sexual orientation of any one appointed to serve as head of such a commission be a factor? Would a straight person be an appropriate appointee?

 

[Metaphor]

If there were a commission being formed to ensure that the rights of gay men and women, would the sexual orientation of any one appointed to serve as head of such a commission be a factor? Would a straight person be an appropriate appointee?

I'm surprised you would ask me this. Of course any sexual orientation would be appropriate; what would matter is that the appointed person is competent and has shown commitment to upholding the legislation underpinning the commission. I would not be surprised if all the top candidates were LGBT but I wouldn't say 'straights need not apply'. Why would I limit my field?

I wouldn't expect a disability discrimination commissioner to be disabled, either.

But even so your situation is not analogous. It is a Sex Discrimination Commissioner, not a Discrimination Against Women Commissioner. Even in the latter case I would still say it's inappropriate (immoral, actually) to rule out an entire gender for consideration.

 

[Toni]

If there were a commission being formed to ensure that the rights of gay men and women, would the sexual orientation of any one appointed to serve as head of such a commission be a factor? Would a straight person be an appropriate appointee?

I'm surprised you would ask me this. Of course any sexual orientation would be appropriate; what would matter is that the appointed person is competent and has shown commitment to upholding the legislation underpinning the commission. I would not be surprised if all the top candidates were LGBT but I wouldn't say 'straights need not apply'. Why would I limit my field?

I wouldn't expect a disability discrimination commissioner to be disabled, either.

But even so your situation is not analogous. It is a Sex Discrimination Commissioner, not a Discrimination Against Women Commissioner. Even in the latter case I would still say it's inappropriate (immoral, actually) to rule out an entire gender for consideration.

I can see your point.

While I agree that it would be unnecessarily limiting to take candidates from only one gender or from only one sexual orientation--or perhaps more accurately to eliminate any candidates from a particular gender or orientation, I can also see the benefit for choosing from among applicants who have a perspective which is quite similar to the group being represented.

Choosing someone who is a member of the group to be represented as the head of the agency charged with representing their perspective is politically expedient, for one thing. More importantly, it also helps to inspire confidence from that group in the ability of the leader of the agency.

The truth is that I prefer to use a female gynecologist when possible. I've had male gynecologists that I liked but I preferred the women. Not because the women were better trained or more well versed in the appropriate subject manner but because if I talked with the women about say: heavy menstrual periods, they were more sympathetic and they understood what I was talking about from the perspective of someone who had had to deal with that issue. The men just looked vaguely embarrassed or horrified and either suggested a prescription or did some verbal head patting. There is a lot of hard evidence that a woman's pain is discounted by the medical profession in a way that men's pain is not.

The women would ask more specific, to the point questions and offer more specific, more practical suggestions. The other thing that I noticed is that the men never brought up my sex life and never asked if there was ever any pain, or any pleasure. Nor did they ask any questions that might reveal if I was the victim of domestic or sexual abuse. It made them uncomfortable. The women: the opposite.

At one point, I needed surgery and the (male) surgeon--an excellent, very well regarded surgeon--completely brushed aside all concerns for how the surgery might affect my sex life. His female colleague, a resident, was the opposite. She took my questions more seriously, and advocated strongly for me. The surgeon did an excellent job in surgery and I am very grateful. Although the post surgical biopsy proved he need not have taken such a hard line. But I am even more grateful that his resident researched and responded to the questions and concerns I had about post surgical life and helped me make some decisions about what the next best course of action might be. I am not saying that no man would have done so but I am saying that the only people I have known who would do with respect to this particular specialty have been women.

I am sorry that is more information than you probably were looking for. But there you have it. Sometimes, you want someone who knows what questions to ask and how to listen and how to sympathize. And who will then go on and do their best for you. Of course any of the male doctors (except the ones that I 'fired'--you will understand that I am older than you are and have lived in a number of different locations, necessitating changing of doctors with each move) I've had in my life also did their best. But the women were more pragmatic, more down to earth, and more sympathetic. I have not always had a choice of whether I wanted a male or a female gynecologist but where I have had, I have chosen a woman, more strongly so the older I have gotten. With very few exceptions, every woman I know is more likely to refer to a female gynecologist over a male gynecologist. This does not hold true in any other medical specialty.

 

[Metaphor]

I can see your point.

While I agree that it would be unnecessarily limiting to take candidates from only one gender or from only one sexual orientation--or perhaps more accurately to eliminate any candidates from a particular gender or orientation, I can also see the benefit for choosing from among applicants who have a perspective which is quite similar to the group being represented.

But the 'group being represented' is all genders and all sexual orientations (in the case of the Sex Discrimination Act).

Choosing someone who is a member of the group to be represented as the head of the agency charged with representing their perspective is politically expedient, for one thing. More importantly, it also helps to inspire confidence from that group in the ability of the leader of the agency.

Politically expedient does not mean morally desirable, and as I've already said, there are no individual 'groups' protected by the Sex Discrimination Act. All genders and sexual orientations are protected.

The truth is that I prefer to use a female gynecologist when possible. I've had male gynecologists that I liked but I preferred the women. Not because the women were better trained or more well versed in the appropriate subject manner but because if I talked with the women about say: heavy menstrual periods, they were more sympathetic and they understood what I was talking about from the perspective of someone who had had to deal with that issue. The men just looked vaguely embarrassed or horrified and either suggested a prescription or did some verbal head patting. There is a lot of hard evidence that a woman's pain is discounted by the medical profession in a way that men's pain is not.

The women would ask more specific, to the point questions and offer more specific, more practical suggestions. The other thing that I noticed is that the men never brought up my sex life and never asked if there was ever any pain, or any pleasure. Nor did they ask any questions that might reveal if I was the victim of domestic or sexual abuse. It made them uncomfortable. The women: the opposite.

At one point, I needed surgery and the (male) surgeon--an excellent, very well regarded surgeon--completely brushed aside all concerns for how the surgery might affect my sex life. His female colleague, a resident, was the opposite. She took my questions more seriously, and advocated strongly for me. The surgeon did an excellent job in surgery and I am very grateful. Although the post surgical biopsy proved he need not have taken such a hard line. But I am even more grateful that his resident researched and responded to the questions and concerns I had about post surgical life and helped me make some decisions about what the next best course of action might be. I am not saying that no man would have done so but I am saying that the only people I have known who would do with respect to this particular specialty have been women.

I am sorry that is more information than you probably were looking for. But there you have it. Sometimes, you want someone who knows what questions to ask and how to listen and how to sympathize. And who will then go on and do their best for you. Of course any of the male doctors (except the ones that I 'fired'--you will understand that I am older than you are and have lived in a number of different locations, necessitating changing of doctors with each move) I've had in my life also did their best. But the women were more pragmatic, more down to earth, and more sympathetic. I have not always had a choice of whether I wanted a male or a female gynecologist but where I have had, I have chosen a woman, more strongly so the older I have gotten. With very few exceptions, every woman I know is more likely to refer to a female gynecologist over a male gynecologist. This does not hold true in any other medical specialty.

Having a gender preference for your doctor does not strike me as relevant to this conversation. You don't really need to justify your preference as a customer; simply having the preference is enough.

But would you encourage discrimination against men in selection for ob/gyn surgical programmes? And would you react neutrally to somebody who said 'I prefer my doctor to be white'?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The truth is that I prefer to use a female gynecologist when possible. I've had male gynecologists that I liked but I preferred the women. Not because the women were better trained or more well versed in the appropriate subject manner but because if I talked with the women about say: heavy menstrual periods, they were more sympathetic and they understood what I was talking about from the perspective of someone who had had to deal with that issue. The men just looked vaguely embarrassed or horrified and either suggested a prescription or did some verbal head patting. There is a lot of hard evidence that a woman's pain is discounted by the medical profession in a way that men's pain is not.

You're making the implicit assumption that all sex discrimination is against women. Since that's false your argument doesn't work.

 

[laughing dog]

The truth is that I prefer to use a female gynecologist when possible. I've had male gynecologists that I liked but I preferred the women. Not because the women were better trained or more well versed in the appropriate subject manner but because if I talked with the women about say: heavy menstrual periods, they were more sympathetic and they understood what I was talking about from the perspective of someone who had had to deal with that issue. The men just looked vaguely embarrassed or horrified and either suggested a prescription or did some verbal head patting. There is a lot of hard evidence that a woman's pain is discounted by the medical profession in a way that men's pain is not.

You're making the implicit assumption that all sex discrimination is against women. Since that's false your argument doesn't work.

The quote you are responding to has nothing at all to do with discrimination against women. It is obvious that Toni is providing rationales for why she prefers femal gynecologists over male gynecologists. So your response is literally pointless.

 

[bilby]

You're making the implicit assumption that all sex discrimination is against women. Since that's false your argument doesn't work.

The quote you are responding to has nothing at all to do with discrimination against women. It is obvious that Toni is providing rationales for why she prefers femal gynecologists over male gynecologists. So your response is literally pointless.

Many gynaecologists are highly discriminatory, and rarely, if ever, treat male patients. It's a scandal.

 

[Toni]

The truth is that I prefer to use a female gynecologist when possible. I've had male gynecologists that I liked but I preferred the women. Not because the women were better trained or more well versed in the appropriate subject manner but because if I talked with the women about say: heavy menstrual periods, they were more sympathetic and they understood what I was talking about from the perspective of someone who had had to deal with that issue. The men just looked vaguely embarrassed or horrified and either suggested a prescription or did some verbal head patting. There is a lot of hard evidence that a woman's pain is discounted by the medical profession in a way that men's pain is not.

You're making the implicit assumption that all sex discrimination is against women. Since that's false your argument doesn't work.

WTF? Clearly your response above is NOT to the post you quoted.

 

[Toni]

But the 'group being represented' is all genders and all sexual orientations (in the case of the Sex Discrimination Act).

Choosing someone who is a member of the group to be represented as the head of the agency charged with representing their perspective is politically expedient, for one thing. More importantly, it also helps to inspire confidence from that group in the ability of the leader of the agency.

Politically expedient does not mean morally desirable, and as I've already said, there are no individual 'groups' protected by the Sex Discrimination Act. All genders and sexual orientations are protected.

But politically expedient is sometimes the most pragmatic way to accomplish a goal. Sometimes, perception is nearly as important as the reality. And regardless, it is necessary to deal with the perception. And given that this is a political office--even if it is not elected, then political expediency does matter.

Of course in an ideal world, it would not matter what ever the gender of the head of the commission. In an ideal world, there would be no need for any such commission.

Having a gender preference for your doctor does not strike me as relevant to this conversation. You don't really need to justify your preference as a customer; simply having the preference is enough.

I included it to make a point: The knowledge of and proficiency in the field of gynecology may be identical between male and female gynecologists, but the perception is that women are more empathetic in this particular field than are men because they face the same issues.

That may be utter rubbish but the fact is that most women I know prefer to have a woman gynecologist. Not for modesty's sake. I have no doubt that men are as capable as women in mastering the material and also in showing empathy, which is required to be an effective doctor, to varying degrees, depending upon specialty. My experience is that men are less able to empathize in this area but I don't assume my experiences are universal. Still, it is a perception many women share. One may be a brilliant physician but it won't do a lot of good if you cannot get your patients to listen to you or to believe that you understand them and their problems and their perspectives.

This is the same idea as selecting only women to head the commission, if in fact, that is an unspoken job requirement. I don't know if it is or is not. I suspect that you do not know, either, although you clearly have your suspicions. I'm not saying that you are wrong. I'm saying that you don't know for sure. Unless I missed the part where you provided actual evidence.

But would you encourage discrimination against men in selection for ob/gyn surgical programmes?

Absolutely not.

And would you react neutrally to somebody who said 'I prefer my doctor to be white'?

Almost certainly, I would not. If I did, it would be with a great deal of effort.

Are those positions entirely consistent? Probably not. But this is not mathematics, this is human nature. Not one of us is perfect or is perfectly consistent.

 

[Metaphor]

This is the same idea as selecting only women to head the commission, if in fact, that is an unspoken job requirement. I don't know if it is or is not. I suspect that you do not know, either, although you clearly have your suspicions. I'm not saying that you are wrong. I'm saying that you don't know for sure. Unless I missed the part where you provided actual evidence.

I provided two lines of evidence, the first (not compelling on its own) was that the appointee had always been a woman. The second line is that a public commentator did not even consider the job fit for any man, given her gendered noun usage.

Almost certainly, I would not. If I did, it would be with a great deal of effort.

Are those positions entirely consistent? Probably not. But this is not mathematics, this is human nature. Not one of us is perfect or is perfectly consistent.

I feel the position is just a tad more inconsistent than you seem to believe. Indeed, on anecdotal evidence, someone could easily say 'I prefer white physicians, because black physicians discount the pain of white people. I prefer white physicians, because black physicians don't seem to understand and empathise with my experience".

Now, I don't want to police the prejudices of individual customers. But to discriminate as an employer and as a society -- as you seem to imply is acceptable in the case of sex discrimination commissioner to appease the political sensibilities of some people -- I do not think acceptable.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There isn't a good analogy to race here and physicians. At best, it's an imperfect analogy.

Sex discrimination officer and gynecologist have functional roles where the primary role is gender/sex based. So hoping for a White physician is like hoping for a female dentist. Gender is not part of criteria to consider in any serious way as a requirement in a non-gender-based role.

For a sex discrimination political official in particular, people could be looking for the following requirements:
1. same gender as the "voter";
2. same ideology as the voter;
3. documented qualifications;
4. very competent.

These 4 requirements acting in concert provide good confidence such official will be acting in the best interest of the person "voting."

Candidate has 1, 2, 3, but not 4. Then they will not be able to competently execute their job.
Candidate has 1, 3, 4, but not 2. Candidate will not be implementing things in the way that the voter thinks they should be. Not a good candidate. Possible example: Ann Coulter if you believe she is competent and a woman.
Candidate has 2, 3, and 4 but not 1. Candidate may have heart in the right place and may be sympathetic, but just might not be on the same page with understanding the issues or their values. They may end up selecting the wrong priorities on issues and making compromises because they do not understand how important issue A is versus issue B.

 

[Metaphor]

There isn't a good analogy to race here and physicians. At best, it's an imperfect analogy.

Sex discrimination officer and gynecologist have functional roles where the primary role is gender/sex based. So hoping for a White physician is like hoping for a female dentist. Gender is not part of criteria to consider in any serious way as a requirement in a non-gender-based role.

For a sex discrimination political official in particular, people could be looking for the following requirements:
1. same gender as the "voter";
2. same ideology as the voter;
3. documented qualifications;
4. very competent.

These 4 requirements acting in concert provide good confidence such official will be acting in the best interest of the person "voting."

Candidate has 1, 2, 3, but not 4. Then they will not be able to competently execute their job.
Candidate has 1, 3, 4, but not 2. Candidate will not be implementing things in the way that the voter thinks they should be. Not a good candidate. Possible example: Ann Coulter if you believe she is competent and a woman.
Candidate has 2, 3, and 4 but not 1. Candidate may have heart in the right place and may be sympathetic, but just might not be on the same page with understanding the issues or their values. They may end up selecting the wrong priorities on issues and making compromises because they do not understand how important issue A is versus issue B.

There is no "1". The Sex Discrimination Act forbids discrimination against all genders.

The 'ideology' of the public or the appointer is irrelevant. The Commissioner is there to uphold and oversee the Act.

Finally, I would sincerely hope that nobody is selecting issue 'A' over issue 'B' because they personally find it important, presuming their priorities are aligned with all people of their own gender. I would hope any public policy is evidence based.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I have told this story before. I seem to need to tell it again

When I was in high school, 10th or 11th grade, the big race scandal was that there were no black cheerleaders on the squad. I didn't go to football games because, well, we sucked, so I had not really paid attention to this until I heard a group of girls discussing it one day at lunch. During study hall, I went to see the adviser for the school paper and asked if I could do an expose on the obvious injustice of freezing black girls out of cheerleading. Ms. M_______ said fine and told me that the squad would be holding additional tryouts because two of the girls were moving to another county. AHA! I thought. I would now show to the world the prejudice and hate seething at my school. (like anything was seething in the sleepy little rural county were I spent my high school years.)

So the next week, intrepid reporter AA, went to tryouts, tape recorder and note pad at the ready.

I was the only girl of color there.

There is no discrimination against a group if no one from the group shows up for or wants a given position. Can there be prejudicial attitudes and a culture that discourages certain groups from trying out? Yes. Should these things be dealt with? Most definitely. But to prove discrimination, you have to have an actual act to point to. That is why the landmark case, Brown v. Board is called Brown v. Board and not No Black Children in the School vs. Board.

 

[Toni]

I provided two lines of evidence, the first (not compelling on its own) was that the appointee had always been a woman. The second line is that a public commentator did not even consider the job fit for any man, given her gendered noun usage.

I would think that you would be the first to realize that anecdotal evidence is not data nor is it proof. Nor are the comments of a public commentator. Gendered noun usage? This is evidence, according to you? I am surprised.

I feel the position is just a tad more inconsistent than you seem to believe. Indeed, on anecdotal evidence, someone could easily say 'I prefer white physicians, because black physicians discount the pain of white people. I prefer white physicians, because black physicians don't seem to understand and empathise with my experience".

Now, I don't want to police the prejudices of individual customers. But to discriminate as an employer and as a society -- as you seem to imply is acceptable in the case of sex discrimination commissioner to appease the political sensibilities of some people -- I do not think acceptable.

You have not demonstrated discrimination. You may be correct that there is a deliberate effort to not hire men to fill that position. There may be more subtle forces that have conspired for decades to discourage men from obtaining the credentials desirable to fulfill this (newly created?) position. But you have demonstrated no deliberate effort on the part of those who will appoint the commissioner.

I also don't think you are understanding the reason that I, and many women prefer a female gynecologist. Please note the specialty. I am not talking about a pediatrician, cardiologist, internist, family practitioner, or even urologist. I'm talking about a specific area of medicine for which women are uniquely predisposed to be empathetic and insightful because of the shared experience of being female.

 

[Tigers!]

There are historical and practical reasons, not to exclude men from consideration, but to only choose one if they show a level of understanding of the issues commensurate with that which comes with the territory of being female. There are so many eminently qualified gazelles out there.

So in your esteemed opinion when will a man be suitable to head the Sex Discrimination Commission?

How many decades do you reckon?