> Sexism definition: Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
I'm not arguing that this isn't a terrible, unwarranted attack; I'm arguing against the dilution of the term. Not every attack against a person of another race is racist and not every attack against a women is sexist.
Where is the "basis on sex" in this story (genuine question, i.e. did her gender motivate the attack)? Without this, you can call it many things but not sexist.
I am not making any statement about who is or is not sexist in this instance. I am solely talking about the role of intent with regards to actions that may or may not be sexist.
Also, note that that definition is not the one that most people who care about this topic use. That would be 'sexual discrimination.' Sexism is a systemic cultural force of sexual discrimination. That said, it's not particularly relevant to what I'm saying either, but I thought I'd mention it.
The type of attack (porn) seems gender-specific to me.
And it's plausible to me that the "same old face" critique is more prevalent with women speakers than with men. How many talks does a man have to give, on average, to get that response, vs. OP's total of three?
That confuses 'why the attack works' with 'why the attack was chosen'.
If I wanted to harass a female, I would probably choose sexual shaming as a weapon, because it is obviously one of the most effective weapons available to me, because society is sexist. I would be morally reprehensible for choosing to harass someone, but my motivation for harassing her would not necessarily be sexist. Perhaps she ran over my cat, I believe she did it on purpose and want to punish her. The attack would work because our culture is rife with sexism. The attack was chosen because I'm angry with her for killing my cat: not because I'm sexist.
Intent is not magic. The hurt caused is not just mended because you didn't mean it.
Maybe this is a better way of putting it: Person A and Person B exist. One of the two means to be sexist, and one does not. They both go around and do the exact same things.
What is the difference between A and B, as far as women or our community are concerned? There effectively isn't any. Now, maybe Person not-sexist is more likely to come to understand how their actions are harming people, and be reformed, but before that point, their intent doesn't mean a damn: they're still hurting others.
It's strategic. It's because we're trying to correct behavior, not just punish offenders. We live in a society together and you can't just push these people out and marginalize them and expect benefits. This has been discussed to death, and the consensus is that you address behavior and not identity because attacking identity accomplishes nothing positive.
Which do you think helps remove the behavior in our society: "that sounded racist, is that really what you meant?" or "you're a racist. I can't believe you said that." One of them gives the person an opportunity to evaluate what they said and how they want to be perceived by others, the other immediately puts them on the defensive and marks you and your cause an enemy to their person.
It's irrelevant. If you do sexist things, you are a sexist. Maybe you don't know you're a sexist, but you are.