>>30
As I said, this quite an empty debate. The definitions are in place, and so are the problems.
No, because the definitions, as you keep using them, confuse large-scale phenomena and small-scale events and likely lead to actual discrimination.
Mainstream feminism pretty much revolves around the grander, more impacting problems, to a fault.
Sturgeon's law.
Before proceeding, I would rather if you stated what sort of concrete discrimination you are alluding.
Okay:
http://science-professor.blogspot.ca/2010/05/left-behind.html
http://www.wolf-howl.com/conference/blogher-conference/
To a certain extent I could argue that some forms of ``affirmative action'' are also very discriminatory.
Oh and you do realize that statistics and large-scale phenomena
cannot serve as an excuse to discrimination. Unless of course you wish to grant validity to all those who interpret race-intelligence correlation studies as justifying discrimination against ${group}.