How is that a valid comparison. Cooking is learned. Gendered physical characteristics, including strength, are not learned, but inherent.
Every trait has its measure of heritability (assuming that the genetic
factor of a trait makes it more "inherent"), the genetic factor for physical strength determines it better (apparently) than does the genetic factor for cooking (if one exists at all). Thus, it is easier to judge a person for physical strength than for cooking abilities, relying only on sex. Facial hair growth (for this discussion) can also be "learned" - caused by a variability in testosterone during pregnancy (I'm not sure about that), so different women can have different expressions of facial hair, but what I am saying is that the variability is small in relation to cooking ability - and thats why I wouldn't judge cooking ability solely on sex.
How about you replace "cooking" with "ability to grow visible facial hair" and see how you get on with women.
(BTW: I love your avatar)
Look, I want to make it clear that I am very, very much in favor of equal opportunity for everyone regardless of gender,
I never though otherwise
but it isn't sexist to assume that men, in general, are physically stronger than women, in general. It's the same as assuming that most men will have a lot more ability to grow visible facial hair than most women.
{bold mine}
I think what we are looking for is a gradient of inherency - from very heritable and not very "learned" (like facial hair) to not very heritable and very "learned" (like cooking ability).
Facial hairCooking ability
So now we can ask the questions:
- What measure of inherency must a trait have in order for me to decide (not in general, but specifically upon one person) whether he/she is likely to have the trait, solely relying on sex - and for it not to be regarded sexism?
- Where in this gradient does "sexual control" stand? (definition needed)