I figure that the problems with •-isms are mostly when:
a) there is antipathy against a group,
b) one falsely infers a causal connection from the membership in the group to the thing,
c) or the •-ism otherwise causes undue harm to members of the group in some other way (I guess this option is just a catch-all to make me not wrong, which suggests that my splitting things up in this way may be a mistake.)
We acknowledge that infants do not have the capability to competently vote, yeah? We have a minimum voting age requirement, which shows that we don’t find all action based on correlation with age to be illegitimate.
I think I am probably forgetting the original context.
Suppose that you are running a class at a local library on how to use some software, and you intend for it to be accessible whether or not the people attending have some specific background knowledge, but it is easier and faster if they do, because you don’t have to explain the background first. Suppose you also have a note sheet that you give out for them to take home in case they forgot any details. You actually have 2 versions of the note sheet, because one version also includes an explanation of the background information, and therefore takes more pages of paper.
Every time you run this class, you find that some of the people attending need the version including the background information, even if all of them are young, but you also notice that people over a certain age are statistically more likely need the longer sheet.
Therefore, when you know that a particular session you are running has a greater than average number of people over that age, you print more of the longer version of the notes sheet.
Have you acted wrongly in doing so?
Is doing so “ageist”?
I don’t think so.
I would imagine in such situations, that the people with the largest amount of background in the topic would likely also skew somewhat older, at least for some topics.
But, seeing as I forgot the context outside of your comment itself, probably this hypothetical is quite unlike the situation in the context.
Edit: Ah, the context was politicians.
Ok.
Idk how to apply this to politicians.
I suppose I am not especially concerned for the individual politicians’ interests, as, aiui, politicians in the US tend to be fairly well off, have enough savings to retire, etc.
Therefore, the goal should be primarily based on how the choice of politicians impacts the rest of the populace.
There may be issues where a way of choosing politicians could cause or reenforce harmful stereotypes that harm other non-politicians?
