No argument there, I’m aware that gender is more that male/female. I’m just pointing out that you claim gender isn’t a factor but your suggestion is to literally make it a factor.
“have a rule where the winners can’t be the same gender” means that gender is a factor.
You answered some other questions I would have had…

You are in one thread trying to argue that gender won’t be a factor, and then in this thread arguing that voters vote twice, splitting their votes between two different genders. That is making gender a factor. If you are splitting it up so much it comes to a point where you have to ask, why not have a male category…

have a rule where the winners can’t be the same gender

Just because you don’t say the words, but still use gender as a factor Isn’t solving the problem. Just like not talking about race doesn’t stop race from being a factor. C’mon, think

That may fix the winners, but not the nominations themselves. I think it’s silly to dismiss the idea that dropping gendered categories won’t lead to more men and fewer women getting nominated if the two award categories are merged. That’s happens in pretty much every nongendered category already except for makeup and…

Boom, not fixed. So to solve the problem of gendered categories, you suggest just not calling them gendered names but still use gender as a determination of who wins. Is that the “solution”? That Is the “I don’t see color” of solutions.

You left out the most important part: your specific argument for why her words were racist. I can’t agree or disagree with them for saying “that’s not even the definition of racist” if I don’t know what you said. Until you give more information, I don’t feel like you’ve provided us with a good example of “racist-ass…

Who decides the gender? Are we now expecting the organization hosting the award to determine their gender? Or can say Chris Pratt suddenly decide he is non-binary for a better shot at winning an award when facing stiff male competition?

I worry that this would unfortunately descend into the acting categories being regularly dominated by four white men and whatever Meryl Streep had done that year. At the Oscars there has been exactly one woman to ever win Best Director and one black woman to win Best Actress.

The push to include a description of systemic racism in the definition of “racism” is dumb. It’s like saying that the definition of “religion” is incomplete because it doesn’t discuss how religious thought influences or infiltrates social and political institutions. Just as you don’t need to know what “theocracy” or…

Fragile white person: “White people aren’t the only ones who can be racist, yaknow! Black people are racist against whites all the time!”

Systemic racism is a term.  You had a term for this already.  You just want to feel secure in flaunting your own biases.

So this woman keep losing arguments because the other side uses a dictionary to prove she is wrong.  Solution.  Change the dictionary.  Brilliant.  1984 anyone?

So what happens when a black person discriminates against a white person in africa? Id call that racism. The bullshit that black people cant be racists is just that, bullshit.

So a person wouldn’t be racist in a society where they are powerless, but if they traveled to a society where their ethnicity was in power, the sames views they held in the previous society could now make them racist?

That’s not how language works. Anyone can still be racist.

Black people can absolutely be racist, with or without social capital. Any time you’re making broad assumptions about another race, that’s racist. Any time you discriminate against someone because of their race, that’s racist.

They only changed it so they wouldn’t get any public backlash. 

Would the previous definition have been some comfort to you in that situation?  Because that’s really bizarre.  

I don’t expect this to change the definition of racism, but to append a definition for systemic racism.