Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="somethingtobelievein" data-source="post: 75701" data-attributes="member: 90">You&#039;re right that men were hunters because they were typically able-bodied, and women were gatherers because they produce babies and therefore must be protected for the tribe to go on. . . . and why are men able bodied?&nbsp; . . . and why can women produce babies while men cannot? . . . why are certain traits &quot;associated with the male sex?&quot; . . .&nbsp; It is the genetics and chromosomes that control their development, which lead to men having penises.&nbsp; No matter how much testosterone you pump into a woman to make her able-bodied, she will NEVER be able to beat trained men in combat or sports.&nbsp; Accordingly, &quot;she&quot; will always be &quot;she,&quot; and only my framework captures this accurately.&nbsp; It has nothing to do with her presentation or behavior: the biology and genetics control.&nbsp; Society can&#039;t decide to associate women with being more able-bodied and men with being able to make babies.So when I say &quot;man up&quot;, of course I&#039;m not literally going to say the words &quot;be a person who possesses a functioning SRY gene in the Y chromosome,&quot; because people don&#039;t talk like that, but I am saying to act that way lol.&nbsp; &quot;gender roles&quot; is a modern phrase.&nbsp; Men and women historically playing different roles in society is evidence for my point of view, because those roles were chosen to align with genetic advantages.&nbsp; If we&#039;ve reached a post-scarcity point of development that suddenly women and men are more free to choose opposite roles in life (eg woman breadwinner and male homemaker), that is a modern development.&nbsp; You may be able to find me some very rare exceptions, but typically the man went out and hunted not because of societal pressure, but because his body was more built - thanks to genetics - to bring home food without getting himself - and therefore the whole family - killed.This honestly makes no sense to me.&nbsp; Maybe it&#039;s the language barrier.&nbsp; But the idea that we have a group of things to define, and some overlap in some ways, so we will use the same word for those overlapping - but different - things does not make any sense to me.&nbsp; &quot;There is no need to replace or use different words altogether.&quot;&nbsp; This conversation is evidence enough that there is a benefit to using different words to define different - even if related - things.&nbsp; My question remains: what is the drawback or disadvantage of introducing new terms to remove all confusion?&nbsp; The only answer I can come to is that the confusion is part of the goal, consciously or subconsciously.&nbsp;&nbsp; I think the proposed framework I laid out in my previous message is more than fair.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="somethingtobelievein, post: 75701, member: 90"] You're right that men were hunters because they were typically able-bodied, and women were gatherers because they produce babies and therefore must be protected for the tribe to go on. . . . and why are men able bodied? . . . and why can women produce babies while men cannot? . . . why are certain traits "associated with the male sex?" . . . It is the genetics and chromosomes that control their development, which lead to men having penises. No matter how much testosterone you pump into a woman to make her able-bodied, she will NEVER be able to beat trained men in combat or sports. Accordingly, "she" will always be "she," and only my framework captures this accurately. It has nothing to do with her presentation or behavior: the biology and genetics control. Society can't decide to associate women with being more able-bodied and men with being able to make babies. So when I say "man up", of course I'm not literally going to say the words "be a person who possesses a functioning SRY gene in the Y chromosome," because people don't talk like that, but I [U]am[/U] saying to act that way lol. "gender roles" is a modern phrase. Men and women historically playing different roles in society is evidence for my point of view, because those roles were chosen to align with genetic advantages. If we've reached a post-scarcity point of development that suddenly women and men are more free to choose opposite roles in life (eg woman breadwinner and male homemaker), [I]that [/I]is a modern development. You may be able to find me some very rare exceptions, but typically the man went out and hunted not because of societal pressure, but because his body was more built - thanks to genetics - to bring home food without getting himself - and therefore the whole family - killed. This honestly makes no sense to me. Maybe it's the language barrier. But the idea that we have a group of things to define, and some overlap in some ways, so we will use the same word for those overlapping - but different - things does not make any sense to me. "There is no need to replace or use different words altogether." This conversation is evidence enough that there is a benefit to using different words to define different - even if related - things. My question remains: what is the [U]drawback or disadvantage [/U]of introducing new terms to remove all confusion? The only answer I can come to is that the confusion is part of the goal, consciously or subconsciously. I think the proposed framework I laid out in my previous message is more than fair. [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Layout Options

Color Schemes

Reply to thread