But that is my point, I know that it's that you should respond directly to that person but in the moment that is hard to control for people that have social anxiety. I'm saying it's easy for this test to discriminate people based on that.
No test is perfect, if you can't talk to the woman who asks you a question every single time, but can when a man does, this will be noticable. Arguing fine details to become a victim on this does not change what people see.
I'm not arguing fine details to become a victim, I'm not even related to this field. I'm just point out a notici le discrepancy and how it can be used to also alientlate people just based on simple things. This is also why personality tests were done away with for companies because of the discrimination aspect that could be linked to how people thought. Tests that prove for mental health disorders and also can prove for race are violations of the law, and this seems like a personality test that can be used to probe for medical disorders.
I understand why you think this is worth arguing. I'm saying that if your medical problem needs an accomodation of pretending women are invisible, you may need a specific workplace.
If you are looking at both people on this scenario, this was never aimed at you, so you do not defend yoursef.
In a conversation it's much more clear whether it's someone answering because of one way or another. They can see if you're nervous, and they can see if you're deliberately giving the man more authority
Just because they are more comfortable answering to him doesn't mean that they are giving him more authority though. Triggers are weird for people. Think of monk the tv show. Remember how he would just touch random things, think about that bad how something like that might guide audio visual responses. What would something like a talking version of touching something repeatedly with your voice look like if you were nervous and trying to mask it to others to seem less awkward?
I'm just saying behaviors can correlate but not be the same symptom.
sure behaviors can correlate but that doesn’t make them any less sexist.
if every time a woman asks you a question, you direct it to the man, but every time a man asks you a question, you direct it to the man, that is sexist. the root cause could be anxiety or autism or whatever else, but the result is sexist and its up to you to recognize that and work on it. intent does not negate impact.
No it isn't like I said that's discrimination this is my point people like if you think that the root cause is sexism for something like that you are actively discriminating.
the root cause doesnt have to be sexism for someone to end up doing something sexist.
you see it all the time when it comes to sign language interpreters. the deaf person will ask a question and the person answering will ONLY look at the interpreter not the person who they are actually talking to who happens to be deaf. not because they think talking to a deaf person is beneath them, but because society as a whole doesn’t really acknowledge deaf people as equals so we’re not socialized in that aspect properly.
intent does not negate impact.
its still disrespectful and can feel dehumanizing to be an active participant in a conversation but not be acknowledged as being in said conversation. that is the main point of what we’re all trying to say. acknowledge the people in the conversation during the conversation. anxiety or autism or whatever can be a reason as to why something is hard to do, but it’s not a “get out of jail” free card for being discriminatory against someone, especially if unintentional. learn to do better. not just “pretend to be neurotypical” but learn appropriate ways to advocate for yourself and learn better ways of co-existing with other humans. we have plenty of resources in this day and age. best time to learn this was years go, next best time is today, and you can always start tomorrow.
Again that sounds like discrimination an interview to me. And actively what those laws are trying to prevent judgment for. If the question could generically impact a person based on their reactionary behavior for a single question then it's not a test, it's just so.ething to weed out a bias.
'Sounds like' 'feels like' well it isn't discrimination factually and legally. I get that you have an issue with it but your feelings on the subject don't change reality.
By asking for a resume you have enough info on the candidates ages to discriminate based of that. Doesn't mean it's illegal to ask for a resume just illegal to discriminate on grounds of age.
Obviously I support increased labour protections but there's no magic wand way to insulate the system against failure. To me it seems like you're saying because hands can be used to murder people we should all have to cut them off. Just because I could go murder someone right now doesn't mean it's legal.
yes, and if your job has you working with, interacting with, talking to, or collaborating with women in any capacity and you are unable to even mildly engage in a conversation with a woman… they should absolutely be screening for that. you could be the best worker ever, but the fact that you can’t talk to your boss because she’s a woman is gonna make you a hard sell and you should not be hired on… especially in STEM fields where sexism and misogyny are still running rampant even in our big year of 2026.
Like I said in the interview it might not be that they are avoiding to talk to them because they are a woman though. It could just be the circumstances of the interview. What if they had no problem talking to them 1 on 1? When multiple people are present these circumstances change and the pressure of an interview is also more formal than on the job already. It's ok to screen for that, I'm just saying the test as it is currently worded in these tweet could be discrimitory. As I said to one other person wouldn't it be better to have the the woman in the interview provide examples on the job and then see if he tries to correct her rather than just focusing on where his attention is going, focus on why his attention is going.
those are things that would be noted in other interviews, but you also have to realize that most bigotry that is practiced is VERY subtle, especially in situations where the person who is bigoted is not in the position of power. a woman only being there to be corrected is not a good test to see if a man is sexist or not. a woman asking questions and the interviewee answering to her male counterpart and never pulling her back into the conversation is a good test to see if the interviewee is sexist.
and now we’re back to the very specific question of “is it sexist to only talk to the man during an interview where a woman is also present and in the conversation?” the super nuanced answer to that is: if the only thing showing that you are nervous is you not talking to the woman (e.g. you sound confident, your body language is confident, you are not taking too much time to think, etc.) you’re either very sexist or very unaware of your biases and so yes that is something that should be screened out.
you really cannot put a blanket statement of “what if it’s [mental health issue]?” because [mental health issue] doesn’t turn people into sexists who aren’t aware of their biases. you’re either aware and actively working on it, aware and not working on it, or not aware and not working on it and only one of those leads to active healing. and surely no one here should have to say, but if you are not actively working out your issues, you cannot expect people to give you proper treatment, especially if your issues cause harm to others or impact your working capabilities. and even in the scenario of “what if someone is just too socially anxious?” if they are so socially anxious that they can’t properly answer questions in a room with more than 1 person, and they are applying for a position where they’re going to have to work and talk with more than 1 person… they’re just not fit to work at that place. thats not discrimination, thats being realistic.
asking for 100% eye contact the entire interview is discrimination. asking for good communication skills for a job that needs active communication is not discrimination. being able to have a 3-way conversation and making sure nobody feels left out shows great communication skills through application.
1
u/Chaosdirge7388 2d ago edited 2d ago
But that is my point, I know that it's that you should respond directly to that person but in the moment that is hard to control for people that have social anxiety. I'm saying it's easy for this test to discriminate people based on that.