Racism & Sexism have evolved as terms to incorporate the societal realities left out by the interpersonal or ideological understanding. To incorporate how those affected endure hardships due to the comprehensive impact of discrimination by public & private institutions and cumulative individual action. These prejudices influence the cultural norms and values, in law, education and media. Racism & sexism are terms for describing the overall of these and other factors, as well as their intricate dynamics, which create the environments in which people are oppressed.

Understanding sexism, racism and other similar in this comprehensive manner is distinct in many ways from understanding it as an ideology. Words, actions, thoughts, and ideas, motivated by ideology or not, can nevertheless contribute to the overall problem.

We can't, for example, measure the social and cultural effect of sexist depictions of women in films. We can assume the perspectives such depictions encourage still manifest in some form as discrimination.

I recognise the need for this change in understanding overall and I support it. There are some consequences for it though, and while it's in the best interests of some to ignore them, for the rest of us, they need to be addressed in some way.

In the West, racism & sexism are considered immoral, there are no cases of either that can be justified. The terms condemn, and there are serious issues with this when you look at what the comprehensive understanding is. It's fine for the terms to generally refer to and acknowledge factors beyond explicit, personal ideology, and to acknowledge that we can't rely on people opening stating their motivations, but then we can't treat the terms the same as before.

An important question is to ask, what is it that determines what is and isn't part of racism & sexism? For instance, when I mentioned "sexist depictions of women in films", what does that actually mean? What does it mean for a depiction of a film to be sexist?

Just generally, the terms "racist" and "sexist" within the comprehensive view contain no specific logic. Not in the "why" or the "how", just the effect and even that approximates just "harm".

It is not that we condemn racism or sexism in the modern context. Since one will use those terms only when condemning something, and will reject their use otherwise. To prove something is racist or sexist, only requires one to prove the effect. If one can argue that X thing was harmful and contributes to the overall experience of racism and sexism, then one can argue X thing is racist or sexist.

Whether one believes there was intent or that their act demonstrates intent, is irrelevant anyway. Combatting racism/sexism will entail correcting behaviour and policies that contribute to the overall oppression. Why would it be okay to do nothing just because there was no intent, or it can't be proven?

The comprehensive definition doesn't differentiate in intent, since it's merely a descriptive account of an environment or societal realities. It's exceedingly difficult to prove the extent to which "societal realities" were a result of racism & sexism using the simplistic definition. How this difficulty is dealt with, and what, specifically, racism & sexism as terms condemn, is central to dealing with the consequences of the comprehensive definition.

I pose some questions, feel free to answer only what interest you:
1) Is it correct that sexism, racism and other similar terms, do not function descriptively, and are moral terms that we use if and when we perceive something to be harmful to the relevant demographic?

2) To what extent do you agree that the terms are ambiguous in terms of "how", and "why" and in describing the harm they cause?

3) Is "ending' racism & sexism, for you, referring to the simplistic definition (prejudice) or the comprehensive one (societal realities)?

I wanted to ask more questions but that'd be too much for one thread. I'm also happy to hear a reframing of my outlining if needed. However, I'd prefer to avoid descriptions laden with ambiguous moral terms, please try to keep things descriptive. The subjectivity involved in interpreting and applying moral terms is at the heart of this topic. I request that if you must use moral terms such as "oppression", "discrimination" etc, explain them as though they're words you've just made up, or share a link that explains them for you.