Summary

Gender is not a social construct, it is however often subject to extremist ideas in either direction.

…A more appropriate description of the dichotomy of opinion is those who believe it has no significance, and those that do.  It is really an exaggeration (and in that sense, done for effect) to couch it as “extremist” to think of it either way.

However, its hard to quite figure out which traits you relevantly ascribe to being “not equal to’

….Observation of other species, as well as humans, tells us that the genders are diversified to fulfill different roles in the social structure.  With that in mind, the sexes are not “equals”.  They are complimentary, and depending on the species may vary a great deal in many aspects of function.

You say women are defnitely not your equal, but I’m curious as to which aspects you’re referring to, and if you believe these aspects applies to all men and all women. From a biological point of view, there is no such thing as absolutes in that sense.

Firstly of all, let’s be clear about one thing.  While there are outliers that demonstrate the continuous function that physical gender is, the bulk of the sexes are clearly distinct and divergent from one another.  It is not sensible to think that the few exceptions can negate a trend.

Different traits of different people varies quite a bit. So in a sense, most people aren’t equal.

… People don’t have to be equal for the genders to have clearly different values in a given attribute.  Even without looking at the topic, there is a logical fallacy being employed here.

Firstly, two populations having distinctly different mean values can still accommodate individuals within the groups having significant variation.  As well, for any given trait, variation does not imply a great deal of overlap.

Thats why I have a hard time believing you are able to come with a sound list of relevant traits you ascribe to each gender, assinging them ‘not equal in any way’.

…The crux of your argument is that the trait has to be “relevant”.

This attempts to sidestep traits such as the ability to gestate a human embryo (without surgical, hormonal, or other medical procedure), or, muscular development in adulthood.  It also seeks to discount traits that are difficult to precisely quantify (yet exhibit differentiation in observation) such as spatial skills, and situational awareness.

Mind you, I don’t consider you my equal in any way wither. But I can safely say its regardless of your cock

….Since the arguments you have presented are either poorly constructed, or altogether a fantasy built on wishful thinking, the result is far more illusion than allusion.  Furthermore, the quick retreat to mud slinging in clear effort to injure your opposition rather than defend your assertions illustrates a weaker resolve than one pretends to have.

If you alone were representative of the female gender, we have evidence of a woman’s emotional vulnerability that many indicate as a separation between the sexes.  Since all those you contest are likely imbued with a penis, the correlation that the inequality in maturity is related to having said penis is strongly supported.

Indeed.  You are truly NOT the equal of the men here.

 

 

IN DETAIL…

A Gender Agenda

Bella Wrote:

Gender is not a social construct, it is however often subject to extremist ideas in either direction. Either people say it doesent matter at all, or that it matters more than it actually does.

Answer:

A more appropriate description of the dichotomy of opinion is more of those who believe it has no significance, and those that do.  It is really an exaggeration (and in that sense, done for effect) to couch it as “extremist” to think of it either way.  Of course, believing in something, and coming to a conclusion based on reasoning is what is being tested (more on that in a moment).

Trick or Trait

Bella Wrote:

However, its hard to quite figure out which traits you relevantly ascribe to being “not equal to”.

Answer:

Observation of other species, as well as humans, tells us that the genders are diversified to fulfill different roles in the social structure.  With that in mind, the sexes are not “equals”.  They are complimentary, and depending on the species may vary a great deal in many aspects of function.

While there is likely no difference in the physical brains between genders, any reliance on equality based on a native system (such as a neurological one) needs to address the importance of installation considerations.

That means, what the system is attached to, the basic “software load” at launch, and how that software is adapted to the organism is critical.  Merely having the exact same physical system at the date of delivery does not translate to the same overall performance envelope.  We are not speaking of environmental or service profile differences here (aka “nurture”, or “girls are brought up differently”), we are talking about how the system has to deal with the organism regardless of external input.

Even if the software at launch was absolutely identical (which remains to be proven), the physical structure (as well as default future “adult” configuration) to which the system is attached to is wholly different.  For example, take something as simple as two automobiles using the very same power plant (with the same engine management software).  However, one model is a two-seat coupe, while the other is an SUV.  Are the automobiles the same?  Are the performance envelopes the same?  Are even the variable values that the software encodes for optimal performance the same?  The answer is obvious, “no” to all of these.

Now that is for a very basic system when compared to a complex organism.  Can you really think that the very same neurological installation will be the same as installed in physiologically different models (let alone what the configuration will be once the divergence of puberty sets in)?  Even if the physical structure were identical, do you honestly think that the software images are anywhere near that parity?

Neither gender is intended to be the equal of the other, nor will they necessarily be in any given aspect.

Adam’s Apple and Eve’s Orange

Bella Wrote:

You say women are defnitely not your equal, but I’m curious as to which aspects you’re referring to, and if you believe these aspects applies to all men and all women. From a biological point of view, there is no such thing as absolutes in that sense.

Answer:

Firstly of all, let’s be clear about one thing.  While there are outliers that demonstrate the continuous function that physical gender is, the bulk of the sexes are clearly distinct and divergent from one another.

It is not sensible to think that the few exceptions can negate a trend.  Hence the challenge to find aspects that apply to the entire population is not valid.  The genders, as a whole are different enough that one cannot dismiss it because a handful of individuals excel at a particular trait that normally their gender is secondary in.

Seriously, if gender didn’t make a difference, perhaps we should have only one category for each Olympic sport (with six medals each).  The chances that any purely physical sport will have even a single female on the podium would be pretty remote (yes, even Tennis).  We will even be blind to any program of performance enhancing substances.

The same would apply for any contest on gestating a human (even with hormonal augmentation).  There would be no male finalists.

Please.  Don’t even try to promote such fallacious concepts.

Measure for Measure for Measure

Bella Wrote:

Different traits of different people varies quite a bit. So in a sense, most people aren’t equal. I don’t even believe people to be of equal worth (Then again, I’m a solid misanthropist). I however do not use gender as the determining factor, as its not entirely relevant. Gender itself doesent say much about what you are other than your sex organ. It will give you a statistical probability of certain traits, but these probabilities are not as big as people unfamiliar with neurobiology might think.

Answer:

People don’t have to be equal for the genders to have clearly different values in a given attribute.  Even without looking at the topic, there is a logical fallacy being employed here.

Firstly, two populations having distinctly different mean values can still accommodate individuals within the groups having significant variation.  As well, for any given trait, variation does not imply a great deal of overlap.

The most visible “trait” is that of upper body muscular development.  While there can be some exceptions, most women have significantly less upper body strength than the average man.  In that category the top decile of men will be far in excess of the strongest woman.  There is a clear differentiation that can be predicted by gender in this regard.

Not as big a probability?  That’s wishful thinking.  The probability of person A having greater upper body strength than person B is pretty high if A is male and B is female (all other things being equal, and both subjects being of adult, and not advanced in age).  The probability of a male giving birth versus a female…  well, you get the picture.

Secondly, the sex organ is a consequence of genetic gender programming.  It doesn’t “determine”. It is determined.  It is an outcome of the diversification.

Thirdly, the last time I checked, the “statistical probability” of a 190 lb male being a lot harder to handle than a 125 lb female pretty obvious.  No one needs to know a single thing about neuroscience to determine which person is likely to do you more harm (that includes the odds of the female being a Krav Maga instructor, just in case you think that “evens it out”.)

Rule of “Some”, Ruler of Many

Bella Wrote:

Thats why I have a hard time believing you are able to come with a sound list of relevant traits you ascribe to each gender, assinging them “not equal in any way”.

Answer:

The crux of your argument is that the trait has to be “relevant”.

This attempts to sidestep traits such as the ability to gestate a human embryo (without surgical, hormonal, or other medical procedure), or, muscular development in adulthood.  It also seeks to discount traits that are difficult to precisely quantify (yet exhibit differentiation in observation) such as spatial skills, and situational awareness.

These traits mentioned are absolutely relevant to both the maintenance of the species as well as how it performs within the natural environment.  The genders are notably bifurcated in these attributes.  They are not only logically bifurcated, they are functionally so too.

The ability to carry a child is still relevant.  So that alone already dismantles any attempt to apply such an argument.

Some may continue to argue that the significant difference in upper-body strength is moot in the “modern world”.  However, it should be realized that the modern world is the very social construct that feminist like to think is doing them this great injustice.  Society artificially reduces the need for physical strength.  In the primal environment, it really helps the survival of the tribal unit. Removing the need also removes the advantage of possessing greater upper body development.

However, there has not been an equal reduction of the advantages that females have.  For example, a woman only has to maintain a reasonable level of mental, physical and psychological health to be relatively attractive.  On the other hand, men are expected to be fit, wealthy, witty yet just a bit aloof, no less than average height, not balding to even be considered by the “modern” Western world princess.  Online, this gets exaggerated to must be a six foot, six pack, six figure income model to be a candidate.

Men and women are not equals: they are complimentary parts of a whole, but they are not necessarily equals in each every “relevant” aspect (or logically, even equal in terms of proportion to the whole).

If we were truly seeking practical “equality”, a system where neither sex loses their advantages would make a lot more sense than one where only men lose them and women keep all of theirs. It cannot be one where we simply and radically enable those who are not mature enough to handle a newfound ability. The experience we see online (where feminists act like precocious little children who stamp there feet, shout, cry and troll when they can’t have everything their way) tells us empowering those who cannot handle that power is counterproductive.

Thus, a Return of Kings is timely indeed.

He-Quality

Bella Wrote:

Mind you, I don’t consider you my equal in any way wither. But I can safely say its regardless of your cock.

Answer:

Since you bring yourself into the discussion, it’s fair to examine the efficacy of this assertion.

The intent is to claim some sort of superiority hinted by a superior argument.  However, since the arguments you have presented are either poorly constructed, or altogether a fantasy built on wishful thinking, the result is far more illusion than allusion.

Furthermore, the quick retreat to mud slinging in clear effort to injure your opposition rather than defend your assertions illustrates a weaker resolve than one pretends to have.  That’s right, all we see is the expected “Can’t win the argument, try insulting and name-calling”.  In contrast, those opposed to your views have shown far more respect and constraint than has been afforded to them.

If you alone were representative of the female gender, we have evidence of a woman’s emotional vulnerability that many indicate as a separation between the sexes.  Since all those you contest are likely imbued with a penis, the correlation that the inequality in maturity is related to having said penis is strongly supported.

Indeed.  You are truly NOT the equal of the men here.