no problem

I understand your point, I just don't agree with it.

statistics are real, but you can't conclude gender bias from voting results with no objective measures. If there were objective measures and the votes went against this then you would have a point, but there isn't.

because it is

the only metric of their performance is the votes they receive, so if they get more votes they are better, that's the system

>If we assume that acting is something that men and women can be equally good at

Why would you make that assumption? Unfortunately how 'good' they are at acting is entirely dependant on how they are judged, the two are linked. So if one group is judged to be better than the other, that's the reality of the situation, as unfair as you may deem it.

We will have to agree to disagree, have a good night

Well it's art, it can never be judged objectively and to call people's preferences bias is wrong, without preferences they wouldn't be able to choose between two performances. I agree the award is really most popular performance but I think most people know this so the name doesn't need changing.

source of definition

I was merely pointing out that just because a population (the voters) don't come to a 50/50 result on something as subjective as other's acting performances doesn't mean there is an inherent bias.

We are discussing people voting on their preference of art

>you don't need to be unfairly prejudiced

that is the definition of bias.

We are talking about awards achieved through votes, so yes, most popular wins. No it's not fair, if it was everyone would get an award but then what's the point?

For bias you have to be 'unfairly prejudiced' for or against someone or something, simply preferring the performance of one person over another does not constitute bias.

If I vote for a woman does that mean I'm bias against men? because that's what you're implying

better as in gets the most votes, if this were to happen it would essentially be pitting the best actor against the best actress, if more people prefer the performance of someone that doesn't mean they're bias against the other because of their gender

edited it so you may understand better

If 80% of the winners were female, is it not possible that they they gave a better performance compared to the men they were pitted against in those years?

I was referring specifically to gender bias

You can't even make that assumption as you're talking about people's opinions not random outcomes, its entirely possible one side would get more votes on a consistent basis. If anything the main 'bias' at play would be from the previous results, as if one side was seeming to dominate there would be an incentive to vote for the other just to even things out.

just because the result isn't 50/50 doesn't mean it is because of bias