hush that fuss, everybody move to the back of the bus

I think that you should wake up () - this has been going on along time, and its not just bus seats. Try looking up Itzhak Rabin, a former Israeli PM that was murdered by the extreme right because he tried to make peace with the Palestinians - the worst part about it is that it worked. Thats just it - religion is DOGMA! Therefore if you "choose" to dress one way or not doesn't matter to them, they "know" whats right and so legitimize any action taken toward their goal. The tip of a very cold and dangerous ice berg. I've been saying that since high school. Israel is defined as a " Jewish and Democratic State" - I see this as a contradiction.

Controlling male sexual urges (not acting upon them) is one thing, but forbidding the urges themselves, as a "sin", is something completely different. This is exactly what is forbidden in judaism. Not exactly, there is a difference between individuals and especially between sexes.

Just because you have urges doesn't mean that you think of people as sexual objects, you can be both sexually attracted to a person and be interested in their minds at the same time - they are not contradictory. We are sexual beings whether you like it or not. Its like saying you don't see yourself as made up of atoms - that doesn't mean it's not true. Agreed. Cynicism will get us nowhere. If you think that a man can't be "a rational and reasonable member of society" - just say so and we can then debate it.

I understand, though I wouldn't ignore it, just learn to control it - like you said before. Agreed, but I still don't think that the root of the problem is not sex limited - it exists in both the sexes, but manifests itself in different ways. I am referring to dogma/religion. Yes, some men are jerks. I don't see how this has anything to do with the topic. You mean like "Ladies first"? Or maybe that men are automatically assumed to have greater physical strength and therefore must do the physical work (from personal experience). I don't care for that type of thought one way or the other - and I think that, relative to our parents, we have actually made a lot of progress in this area.

True, and most women cook better than most men, but I still wouldn't ask only women to cook, because its not true in every situation. Instead, I would search for the best cook - regardless of sex.

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.
(BTW: I love your avatar) I never though otherwise {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 abilitySo 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)