"Julia" isn't being insulted more than "Eric" because of sexism. "Julia" being insulted more than "Eric" is sexism.

The causes of sexism is another subject. But the first step is to acknowledge sexism is going on in the first place.

In this entire situation, it was ALWAYS Julia answering the messages; the ONLY thing that changed was name and photo.

What? No. "A man and a woman are treated differently" is not sexism unless there's a causal link between their sex and their treatment.

How else would you explain the difference in this case?

I dunno, maybe with some actual analysis of the events rather than an assumption that "if something bad happens to a woman then it's sexist"?

TFA does that.

I'd add - it also usually has to be unjustified and harmful per common usage.

>”Julia" being insulted more than "Eric" is sexism.

This argument could stand if we knew the exact sexual preferences of site users. If tested auditory was e.g. 100% to-male-attracted, what is your guess about “Eric” getting harassed or attacked vs “Julia”?

Most things in life cannot be terated like a scientific experiment. It would be interesting to conduct high quality research to find out if my company is sexist, but there is no time, money or desire to do that. So we have to rely on less formal information.

Also the whole "strong statement requires an extraordinary amount of work" thing is entirely dependant on your outlook. I could just as easily say the opposite statement (that sexisim is minimal) and suggest that it requires extraordinary evidence to prove that. The degree to which you think something is extraordinary depends on your outlook and experience, it is rarely objective.

Both statements - "sexism does not exist" and "sexism is everywhere" are equally extreme. By saying the former you deny the obvious. By saying the latter you effectively claim that every single person is sexist, which is a bit unfair.

Except that the extremeness of the statement is subjectively based on your own outlook. And there is an implicit value judgement in making that decision about what you consider "extreme". Arguably all people are sexist, but not in a particularly problamatic or socially unacceptable way. It is human nature to notice gender after all. And applying such logical rules to something so nuanced and subjective is flawed, and will unavoidably lead to an argument over semantics.

> I could just as easily say the opposite statement (that sexisim is minimal) and suggest that it requires extraordinary evidence to prove that

You could, and it does. But it's it matter of opinion/semantics that this is "the opposite statement".

In context, a specific claim is a specific claim, whichever way it goes. The "opposite" in another sense, is to make no claim, and therefor stick to the default position of allowing for either possibility without knowing which (agnostic position?). There is absolutely nothing wrong with that position, and it requires no additional information, as opposed to "less formal information".

Now, if you claim we need to adopt a specific position, and do so with little information, i.e. without the time/money to do so then you'd have to justify that - i.e why isn't it strongly desired, yet still apparently important, to hold a position on the topic?

I think it is mindnumbing that your (very reasonable) questioning of the validity of such a strong and all-encompassing statement is being dismissed, downvoted.

To some extent, I would take it with a grain of salt. Anonymous internet accounts can be fabricated and controlled by groups or individuals. This is also something that should be taught, actively.

Do not let apparent social pressure have you concede rationality, truth.