I totally agree with you. There are people like that who can behave poorly if a woman is involved because they treat them differently. But I have now seen Serena's example over and over and I don't see the harassment, though. Like I said above, the other umpire getting off his chair to coddle Kyrgios is sexist because he would never have done that to a woman (or maybe he would have, but that's a weasel thought) but that umpire's behaviour was contrary to the rules and/or ethics of the game. I'll ask it another way: would you teach your kid to behave as Serena did, or rather to react to someone behaving in that way in a consistent logical way (as the umpire did) ? Which is more likely to result in personal growth? Unless the ump was treating Osaka the same way (ie badly, as a woman) , or her (Osaka's) coach was also coaching and the ump ignored it, that isn't an -ism at all. And even if he did, that is bias, at best. PS: I can agree with James Woods for entirely different reasons. I believe all of us are responsible for our own behaviour but that her behaviour wasn't bad because she was a woman, and not even in spite of her being a woman (which is as sexist), but because her behaviour was terrible, full stop. You could just as easily fall into a 'he was racist' trap because she is an African American - that is at least as valid. What we can do is have a discussion whether it warranted a game default - but that is a different discussion. As in Cornet's case, the rule can be sexist, and by resolving it the Tennis Assoc admitted as much. But unless the response to this situation is to change the rules to allow her (Serena) to behave that way because she is a woman, I submit that the umpire cannot have been sexist.
