[lomegor]

It's not that doing action to a person of certain demographics makes the action immoral. What makes it immoral is the idea behind those actions. For example, there's no problem in saying all people are stupid, but saying all black people are stupid IS immoral, and doing actions based on that thought is also immoral. In that way, the "plough the fields" was a reference to black people being slaves and by selling Legos in that way, you are propagating the almost dead idea that black people should be slaves.

I was not referring to men and women being equal to the law, but being equal as humans. Black people and white people are biologically different too, but no one says that black people eat fried chicken because their brains are different. So, until a scientific study proves that women's brain account for them liking dolls instead of Lego, I will still think that's society that makes them that way. In fact, I think many sociological studies have proven that differences between men and women are different between different cultures, but I have not seen one article that stated that women tend to like accessories because of their brain.

[yummyfajitas]

...but saying all black people are stupid IS immoral...

Supposing hypothetically that this were true, would it still be immoral?

So, until a scientific study proves that women's brain account for them liking dolls instead of Lego, I will still think that's society that makes them that way.

So it's immoral to make decisions based on people's actions if those actions are not proven to be driven by brain chemistry?

Suppose a scientific study said Lego would make more money by selling pink cars to girls and aliens to boys, with no reason given. Would acting on this be immoral?

Or, suppose there were no study, but Lego merely tried out 20 different product lines. Of those product lines, the pink cars sold very well (purchased mostly by girls) and so did the aliens (mostly purchased by boys). Would it be immoral for Lego to continue a sales strategy based on these two successful lines?

[lomegor]

Maybe I did not express myself correctly. First of all, if it was true that black people are stupid then it wouldn't be immoral.

What I meant is that it's immoral to make decisions based on ideas you have of people that have not been proven. (It does not matter if it's driven by brain chemistry.)

Doing those things is not immoral per se, but if you do it by thinking that those things are natural to the gender, the become immoral.

In this case I think it's quite complex, like you point out with your questions. I do not think that Lego's action are immoral because of their ideals, but because they are propagating stereotypes and sexism that worsens, at least in my opinion, the lives of many men and women in this society. For example, because there are still separating women with pink and dolls, and men with blue and robots, girls who like robots may be bullied, as well as men who likes dolls.

[yummyfajitas]

What I meant is that it's immoral to make decisions based on ideas you have of people that have not been proven.

In that case, it sounds like most startup founders are immoral by your definition. The vast majority of startups make decisions based on ideas they have about people which are not proven, i.e. "people would like to rent out their home to strangers".

...but if you do it by thinking that those things are natural to the gender, the become immoral.

What if you don't know whether those things are natural to the gender or learned, but make decisions based solely on predicted (or demonstrated) consumer behavior? I.e., "these pink cars sell really well, mostly to girls, I have no idea why. Lets make more and market them widely."

Or what if you are just testing hypothesis? "Lets try out pink cars, aliens, babies, pirates and zombies, and then see what sells." Would that be immoral? It certainly lacks the certainty you seem to want, but it is how many businesses make decisions.

[lomegor]

Yeah, you are right on that ideas making an action immoral do not make too much sense. What I'm trying to say that the idea behind those actions is immoral, making the action immoral. But still, I'm not sure about that.

I am sure about your second part. If you make decisions on predicted consumer behaviour, most of the time you are OK. The same happens when you are testing an hypothesis or something like that. What makes it immoral is propagating the stereotypes and probably worsening discrimination. So, it isn't a problem if you assume all men want to clean their hair or don't want to have dandruff. It's not OK if you assume all men don't know how to cook, even if it has been predicted (or demonstrated) by consumer behaviour.

It's not that these actions are always bad, is that they are bad in the current society we live in.