Again, totally plausible. I agree that the post has jumped to a conclusion, that this conclusion is sensationalist and some of their arguments require further justification.

And I should point out that I very often dismiss such articles as crying wolf, especially where there is something to be gained by doing so (in this case, lots of publicity).

But actually, the issue deserves some publicity. Even if it was just an intern jumping to a somewhat sexist conclusion (though it sounds slightly absurd that they would send an intern to rescind a winning entry, but then I have absolutely no understanding of the inner workings of CES)

So yeah - an intentional choice has clearly been made to view this through a lens; that lens happens to be a little sensationalist. But still, it's far from a baseless accusation.

(also prejudice does not necessitate malice. In my view, in the majority of cases, prejudice IS stupidity. But you can hurt a lot of people with stupidity)

The chain of events you're describing illustrates how sexism actually works. It's not usually the result of a cabal of Evil Sexists deliberately doing their best to be sexists.

What part of that chain of events would lead to a sexist outcome? Where's the gender bias introduced?

I think CES's half-formed "this is immoral" and "this is not a robot" excuses would have been less likely if the product was targeted at men.

I won't say anything about the immorality because differentiating between male and female sexual experiences is incredibly bigoted and I don't believe this is what was meant by their message at all.

I'd expect a similarly advanced fleshlight to be refused on the same grounds as this toy, despite being built for men. I don't think it's fair that this product, advanced as though it might be, is put in the same category as fully articulated sex robots.

Like I said, this isn't about intentions. It's entirely possible to unintentionally differentiate between male and female sexual experiences.

I don't understand why you think it shouldn't be in the same category as a sex robot. A robot doesn't have to be some kind of fake human to be a robot.

Without an example of them showing bias by actually giving an award to a product that is much like theirs that targets men this is sheer conjecture, and presumption of bias. Has the CES ever given an award for an adult product? Perhaps it could be due to the USA having very puritan views on sex still to this day (Violence OK on broadcast TV, but no nudity/sex).

Yes, CES has previously given awards to sex toys - even to sex toys targeted at women.

CES did not say it was immoral, that was deceptive on the part of the author.

Their initial response was to cite the following text:

> Entries deemed by CTA in their sole discretion to be immoral, obscene, indecent, profane or not in keeping with CTA’s image will be disqualified. CTA reserves the right in its sole discretion to disqualify any entry at any time which, in CTA’s opinion, endangers the safety or well being of any person, or fails to comply with these Official Rules.

So, if they didn't call it immoral, they called it obscene, indecent or profane.