They are hard to convict because usually there are no witnesses and it turns into he said / she said. I see a lot of people wishing it were not so, but the legal system has severe punishments and thus a high bar for conviction (or that's how it's supposed to be).

On the other hand, people have sex for pleasure a lot, and sexual activity is strongly linked to emotion, so if you come to the police with a tale of an unwelcome sexual encounter you have to answer all these extra questions about consent and secondary motive to get taken seriously. If a complainant doesn't show obvious signs of physical trauma indicating a violent struggle, then it can often be a problem to get the complaint of rape to be taken seriously and investigated urgently.

Conclusions: individuals are not odds.

The trouble with discrimination is, it works so well.

I agree; the problem is just that the society (and laws) judges different cases of discrimination completely differently, even though the underlying mathematical principles are the same. Don't hire a man because he could be a rapist? OK. Don't hire a woman because she might give birth? Outrageous.

>even though the underlying mathematical principles are the same. Don't hire a man because he could be a rapist? OK. Don't hire a woman because she might give birth? Outrageous.

Yeah, one is not hiring someone who forces and hurts people for his sexual pleasure, the other is not hiring someone giving birth, something we celebrate, and helps human society continue existing.

I don't even know what "the underlying mathematical principles are the same" is supposed to mean, when the ethical differences are so vast. That there might be same chance of him being a rapist to her giving birth? How is that even relevant?

That's how I understood it too.

I was pointing to the inhumanity of treating people as mere means to an end ("not effective") especially in the case of pregnant women (which translates to women should either not get pregnant because its bad for business or be unemployable when they consider to do so).

You say it's just a "statistical argument". That's what I responded to, too: that's it's not OK - at least to me - to do mere statistical arguments when moral judgements are involved. Or rather, it's ok to do them as science, but this is not that, this is how actual managers and employers think and treat employees.

Really, ask yourself how you'd feel if a prospective employer or business partner said 'Joe, what assurance can you give me that you're not going to knock your wife up and go all googly-eyed over some squalling infant a year from now? Can you commit to tying a knot in it?'