Ah, there we go.
The specific harm is, as I've stated before, that it promotes the stereotype that women are not capable of learning to shoot in a class that includes men, as well as the stereotype that women are not as good at learning shooting because, to use your categorization, shooting is "masculine".
Vanya, have you noticed that we're not getting anywhere?
Do we agree that the segregated restaurant is unethical, regardless of other choices in the same city?
(This is not a trick question-- I'm looking for a straight up yes or no.)
If so, how does that restaurant do in your specific harm test? I submit that it does no specific harm, other than furthering the stereotype.
And that is not only a lot of harm, but it is sufficient to rule the restaurant unethical.
Nope. My point wasn't "Look, there are lots of them!" It was that there is an obvious common element, which I asked you to consider.
I see. Yes, I misinterpreted it.
And yes, we can go back and redefine, for this discussion, "ethical" and "unethical", or we can jump ahead and agree on a few things-- which I tried to do with the restaurant. Yes, I can see how that comes out as "it's unethical because it's unethical", so perhaps we need to define "ethical", if only for this discussion.