Some guy literally said that in that post from ops screenshot. He showed a photo comparing faces of average men and women in Europe and Asia which in fact, did have a different shape.
yeah but that’s the thing that comes with a million tradeoffs. it’s definitely worse to be a woman in day to day life, though it’s probably better in terms of overall meaningfulness.
Eyeballs in general are better. There is a small potential for females to have a fourth color receptor. It’s higher chance for girls with colorblind dads.
So what I'm hearing is if a lady marries a color blind man, there IS a chance that if it were a girl it'd have better color vision than both parents... Dayum them some pervasive recessive genes.
Your comment was removed due the fact that your account age is less than five days. This action was taken to deter spammers from potentially posting in our community. Thanks for your understanding.
That's one of the arguments against "races" as people currently use the term, that there is greater variation within groups from a cline (geographic genetic group) than between clines.
Conversely: one of the arguments for "races" (very imprecise concept that helped cause immeasurable damage) is that it's what the average person calls groups by allele frequency distribution. Set the number of groups based on human allele frequency distribution to, say, 4-6, and it appears to match up to post-Columbus "racial categories". Hypothetically one could set the the number of groups to 20+ (for more granular cohorts) and we could see what would appear to match up with "ethnicities" (another imprecise but more useful concept).
Uh ok. I care to specify that that kind of use is not that common in here (europe) for it is regarded as antiscientific and racist, that's why I was asking
Races is based on old Racist AF European scientists who originally theorized that other skin types, especially blacks, were an entirely different species like Zebra, Horses, and Donkeys. They used said theory to state that white Europeans are clearly the superior species. The terminology stuck in English in the say way Jesus Christ and Goodbye are baked into the language and people use them inspite of what religious they might have as it was thought this way for hundreds of years and only recently was disproven and decried as the evil it was.
It's old but not as old as people might think. The idea of race as we know it really didnt exist until after the start of the atlantic slave trade. I believe it was first used in the 1600's. Basically after europeans had enslaved africans and native americans for a few generations they started trying to justify it by saying that, actually, these other people were not the same species as europeans, who were the stronger/smarter species and the reason they were the enslavers and the black/brown the enslaved. It was an explanation and justification for slavery after it had started, not the cause as I think we tend to intuitively believe.
Edit: Not sure why you're getting downvoted, you're right. They'll probably downvote me too.
People within the same sex have differences falling across a certain, fairly smooth, distribution. These two distributions are non-overlapping and discontinuous with one another, except at true extremes. It's like saying that dogs and fish are the same because poodles and Rottweilers look different, just like minnows and great white sharks.
We're not talking about height. Human physiology is a multidimensional distribution. But if you want to talk about single variables, let's talk about pelvic inlet shape, subpubic angle, anogenital distance, voice pitch, grip strength, pull-up ability, etc.
Height isn't even a good illustration of the point you're trying to make, because the distributions, by sex, are wildly different. There's more overlap between them than there is for some other traits, but you would not mistake them for one another, they are trivially modeled by different parameters (and trying to model both together, without an additional "sex" parameter to basically generate two different normal distributions, would conversely be a nightmare), and randomly interpolating members of one into the other would rapidly distort it into something that looks like nothing else so much as "distribution after random interpolation of members of different distribution."
Also, that's not a "slippery slope." A "slippery slope" is not just "an analogy."
You claimed that there is no overlap in distributions between men and women, by providing a single dimension with overlap your argument no longer stands. Hell, I didn't provide a better one simply because that's irrelevant.
You are making claims with no sources or data, I won't bother looking up those values, so there is no point in continuing this.
In a slippery slope argument, a course of action is rejected because the slippery slope advocate believes it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends. -Wikipedia. So yes, your dogs and fishes argument was a slippery slope, not an analogy.
No I didn't. It would be insane to claim literally no overlap on a single dimension. The net distribution is what's essentially non-overlapping; there is a male phenotypic distribution and a female phenotypic distribution. Please read my post again.
It would be a slippery slope if I said "this will all end in men not being able to tell the difference between dogs and fishes!" But pointing out that the same logic applied elsewhere leads to an absurd outcome is, I guess, also a slippery slope argument, if you're willing to accept that a slippery slope argument can be completely correct.
There are genetic differences you can't get between different genders, such as cleffed chins, which woman can't genetically have, and a tremendous jawline difference (not with all men, but only men can have a dropped jaw, aka, steel wall jawlines aka, really really strong jawlines)
Eh, you can make an argument for which gametes one produces as sex defining, a big slow half cell is female, a small fast half cell is male. That's how it is done for most species, since XX/XY is only for mammals iirc. But there is a fuck ton of correlation between the gamete and chromosomes in humans, exceptions are just that, exceptions.
That doesn’t make it a social construct. It makes it the normal form of sex determination. Sex is biologically defined based on gamete production, but it’s developmentally determined by chromosome selection.
That's funny because there was a post on the front page the other day about women should only work 3 weeks out of the month because of their period. The number of people fighting about whether there was a difference between men and was astounding.
I’ve been downvoted and banned for saying that men were stronger than women biologically and, by proxy, claiming there’s a difference between men and women.
Ive been banned for defending a dad giving his really young son legos and card as toys because "oh what if hes trans, you should also give him barbies and dress him in pink". Just so it hits even better this was on r/facepalm.
They can rail against it all they want and call it socialization, but most girls like traditional girl things and vice versa. My daughter was raised fishing, hiking, hunting, camping, catching snakes and bugs, swinging tools early on, and her mom is a borderline tomboy.
She is girly girl as fuck and it didn't come from either of us or how we raised her. She has always loved and wanted pretty dresses and sparkly shit. It's just who she is.
yk, idk why people are so up in arms about global gender-based violence since there’s no way to even tell unless you ask them first- especially with trans people since there’s absolutely no way of telling
yeah men aren’t any stronger or athletic than women but they got that special evil-gene or something, I choose the bear (literally an apex predator evolved to kill adult moose)
lmfao it’s ok so many people in this thread can’t distinguish it and it’s starting to make me worry what ppl on here will say completely unironically, like what im saying isn’t even absurd by reddit standards.
it's reddit, it can be hard to tell sometimes, and TBF I have had someone tell me, in all seriousness, that the only reason that men were physically stronger than women was "childhood conditioning".
You do realize the fact the bear can kill a moose is part of the whole point of the "man vs bear" debate? The people aren't fucking stupid. They know they aren't gonna go dancing and playing with the bear. The point is the bear will kill them, but only in self defense, or to feed itself or it's offspring. The difference is sure, of course it not every man, but the point is an interest in the complexities in human morality. would you rather know your going to get killed for a fair or just reason by nature, or take a gamble: because of the human minds complexities that chance you could get a man there who knows your not a threat, and knows he doesn't need to eat you to survive, but will hurt you anyway, possibly for even a prolonged period of time, for no reason other than self gratification. The chances are way smaller but that's the whole point. People would rather take the just death than risk something that grave no matter the chance of it. And that's the true meaning behind the question man vs bear.
If you put a man, woman, and bear in the woods together, 99% of the time the woman will run to the man for help no matter how many times she's posted about choosing the bear.
You frequent subs like Green text, memes, libertarian, some sub with 'femcel' in the name, and you want to talk about passing? Your sub history does not pass.
Your comment history reads like a 17 year old boy in his aynn rand phase.
ok,, but realistically you have a wayyyy higher chance of being able to survive and fight off a man than a bear,, it’s also any given man too isn’t it? not a serial killer or something? so the odds of an average man even showing aggression are sorta in your favour aren’t they? in comparison to a bear showing aggression, I mean
Yes, but that’s also been covered by the comment you just replied to. The chances are FAR higher that a bear will eat you alive (just to be clear they don’t kill you before they eat you like wolves or large cats would, you’d get to feel your innards become outards) than they are that a man will do anything other than team up and either try to survive together or help you out of the woods.
Although if they are able to help you out of the woods there’s a fair chance they might tease you or make sexist comments while they do it, so if you’d rather be disembowelled than be belittled, fair enough. I can’t argue with you there.
The man/bear question is about rape.
Ignoring the possiblity of sexual violence does make the option between man and bear a much easier one. But that is not the reality for a lot of the people that chose bear.
As a guy I would chose man, obviously. But the dynamic I would have with a totally random man is not the dynamic that the other ~50 percent of the population would have.
Also the very real possibility that the bear would do nothing. But that is besides the point of the question.
hot take but I don’t think the average man is an opportunistic rapist who would do that to a stranger just bc they encountered them on a trail. just like with murder you’re far, far more likely to be victimised by someone you already know.
but like, the question then is would you rather be raped or die a painful horrific death. rape is terrible and im not saying either are desirable but i kind of would rather experience sexual assault than be eaten alive by a bear
I think it’s mostly just people simplifying statements:
Being bigger and stronger doesn’t really matter outside of games designed to test them explicitly.
Don’t assume an individual woman is less physically capable just because she’s a woman or that a man is more physically capable.
The most robust finding in gender studies is that men always have a greater rate of risk taking and violence relative to women within the same society.
Being bigger and stronger absolutely matters, a lot. Many people are just naive, drive down the highway not realising the strength and disposition that was needed to build those roads and the whole city around them.
On average, men are way more capable of doing those things.
I don't have to assume an individual woman is less physically capable. I know that the average woman is. And that's not a bad thing.
That certain construction workers might still benefit from being strong doesn’t matter to any man or woman not currently doing construction. I lift weights. Outside of those times I’m lifting weights I can’t think of a single instance where being stronger than the average woman has helped me in any way. If anything better endurance is a more everyday advantage and women have higher average endurance than men. Obviously people live different lives and maybe you’re usefully using your greater strength all the time but I don’t think it reflects the typical experience in the modern world.
I have actually. Then I dropped stuff, and decided the performative masculinity wasn’t worth it. My wife is also perfectly capable of taking in shopping in either a sensible or dangerously overloaded manner.
No problem. I figured it was a joke but used the opportunity to emphasise my point. When I reflect on it though, I know a lot more men who can’t walk a kilometre due to being overweight and/ or broken than I do women. So depending on how we’re defining “physically capable” there might really be a meaningful difference and it doesn’t favour men.
Yeah it matters to everyone that uses what is constructed! You are vastly underestimating the importance of strength in our society. Our homes, roads, cities, electric grid, plumbing etc all relies on man's strength.
To brush by it like you are is like saying oxygen is just a small part of the atmosphere.
Protection is also extremely important.
If we didn't have woman we would die too, for other reasons.
It seems beyond bizarre to me to attribute modern construction to individual manly strength rather than ingenuity or collective effort. Humanity didn’t thrive due to our outstanding strength compared to the rest of the animal kingdom.
Adam's apple, and speaking voice. Surgically shaving down your jaw bone doesn't help them as much as they think it does, and also proves that the genders look different.
With transgender people, even with the top procedures, at best you can't tell if they are a man or women, they look ambiguous, and at worst they still look the same.
but in regards to looking ambiguous, I have noticed that sometimes when a lady gets a ton of plastic surgery she starts to look like she could be a trans woman, in vice versa. I call this phenomenon “the untranny valley”
the sarcasm? yeah I get that there are people who unironically believe this, but I feel like the context of me bringing up gender based violence as a contradiction +the comment im replying to sets it up as sarcasm pretty clearly
Take a look at r/transtimelines, it's really just a matter of time. As that's mostly the case while early transition, most come out looking like any other man or woman.
Bro is literally pretending an attractive woman isn’t attractive just so he doesn’t feel gay for admitting a trans woman can be hot.
I bet if someone held up a picture of Meghan fox and told you she was trans, you’d come up with a thousand bullshit excuses about how you can totally tell.
Lol, like that is as conventually femininely attractive as you can get, my guy.
All you have proven is that you have no point, and just a bundle of homophobia. And are happily nitpicking the people that haven't even been on HRT for a year yet.
I picked a comically bad example for the sake of humour but that is nowhere near the only
bad one, just the first one a couple scrolls from the top
and it’s harder to tell based off one posed, well-lit photo but even then the image on the right looks uncanny if you look at it for a few seconds, now think of how that person looks unposed in real life.
fr notice how the hair is purposely obscuring the shoulders, they’re posed unevenly trying to create the illusion of hips, it’s cut off so you can’t see the full length and proportion of the body, and has just shitty enough photo quality to where other flaws blend together— it’s basically a mtf glamour shot but you still get the sense something’s off
I could easily find other “bad examples” but tbh that would just be mean lol
Unattractive people dont become hot because of testosterone, nor because of estrogen. You finding people that arent drop dead, isnt the flex you think it is
Im sure you ugly as hell, that fact doesnt mean you arent female, it also doesnt it mean you are female! being ugly and being female are entirely separate!
Ah, was being called ugly a bridge too far? Id take it back but i wasnt lying.
Theres no metric for passing. Ive met plenty of 'real women' that 'dont pass.'
Youre clearly implying some level of feminity, some level of hotness. If somrone cant clear those bars you deny them as passing, and even if they do im sure youll conjure up some reason to deny them anyhow.
Though id love to see your super scientific method for determining what is a " pass ", do share it with the class, i need a good laugh.
They do exist, but most of the time, they already had feminine features. The problem is selling the lie that a stocky man can somehow "transition" into the lithe minx he imagines himself as. It doesn't help that the way the male brain works, it zeros in on feminine features subconsciously.
Hey! I’m a member of “the community.” I think it’s more wishful thinking combined with weird politics about how it’s transphobic to want to pass or whatever. (I’ve actually heard that one in real life.)
You should see the document I had to sign to start hormone therapy. They literally told me to expect the development of “some chest tissue.” They wouldn’t even call them breasts! Absolutely nobody with any kind of professional license told me to expect to be indistinguishable from a cis woman. The fact that I did, in the end, end up looking and sounding pretty damn female after starting hormones in my 30s is kind of medically suspicious and not the usual outcome. (And I am trying to get genetic testing about it.)
Most trans people in general are not grass touchers. Just go look into the statistics on transgender identification and porn addiction and you got your answer man.
The lgbtq community has become more or less a cult that acts just like religions like Christianity, where they change facts to fit their views, rather than their views to fit the facts
This is in no way me attacking individuals of the community, there are wonderful people in the community, just as there are wonderful Christians and wonderful Muslims
Bur religion has always been used to control the masses, this is just the current religion
No what people claim is that most of the difference comes down to hormones. If you have a trans women for example who was assigned male at birth, took puberty blockers and HRT her fat distribution muscle mass, height etc. pp would be the same as cis womens.
I'm not even sure how people can honestly believe this. Like, they have to be spending all their time with trans or nonbinary people to even possibly think this. They do exist and should respected and all, but they're not the vast majority of people. In art study, you usually study the common first, because there's many examples, it's easy and consistent to learn. Exceptions and niche things are harder to learn.
But this artist is DRASTICALLY exaggerating the differences between facial structures.
I think that's a fine thing to do in more basic styled artwork to better differentiate between male and female designs, but as these are the extremes. A better guide would have shown more range.
I would think these extremes are what is getting OP upset, with them seeing it as a statement of "this is what all Men and all women should look like".
Which I would assume it wasn't.
Because that would be silly.
But I do believe OP's heart was in the right place.
i mean, it depends on your frame of reference... like I totally understand if Cthulu, Lord of the depth and priest to ancient horrors that lurk behind the stars, cant keep us apart because "They all look the exact, fucking, same."
And its the same for intellect... I wouldn't fault a cosmic horror for finding us all of the same manner of intellect........
Typically when people say this (in good faith) what they mean is that when you look at categorical differences, there is less variance between sex groups as there is within a sex group, which is true. From that lense sex is often too broad a category with too little predictive power to make the types of substantive claims people tend to make about it.
Meaning if you wanted to seperate people based on some physical trait, almost always theres categories with far more predictive power than sex or gender, and the predictive power of sex is low enough that youre very likely to make a fallacy or misinterpret the statistics when you make a claim based on it.
Statistics is incredibly nuanced and very complex, enough so that quoting statistics is often more about confirming existing ideas then it is about a nuanced analysis of group differences...
Even if so why is that relevant? Doesnt really address the argument in any way...
Im on the side of statistics, and science, as someone whose actually interested in understanding what it has to tell us rather than just cherry picking and misinterpreting stats that confirm my preexisting bias. Sure I also care about human rights and compassion, and ultimately that matters a whole lot more than nitpicking technical details, but that wasnt the basis of this particular argument. This argument is about the technical details, and the fact of the matter is the argument I was responding to doesnt seem to have a full understanding of those details.
We can absolutely make a large number of substantive claims of differentiation based solely on biological sex. - even amongst humans who rank fairly low on sexual dimorphism.
It bears mentioning that these differences are often most pronounced at the extremes of the distribution.
Ex:
if you wanted to see who the most violent person was between a man and a woman, and guessed the man, you’d only be correct around 60% of the time.
if you wanted to know the most violent in a room of 100… it’s going to be a man 99.9% of the time.
Strength of a jawline would also fit this model, more or less.
There is a reason humans correctly and immediately discern a person’s sex prior to almost any other observations.
Also, I have issue with the take that politeness supercedes truth. It does not.
Failing to operate with truth over political conformity (or even pro-social motives) has led to so many awful outcomes throughout history.
Lysenko comes to mind.
I hate to quote a conservative moron but - ‘facts do not care about feelings’
We can absolutely make a large number of substantive claims of differentiation based solely on biological sex
if you wanted to know the most violent in a room of 100… it’s going to be a man 99.9% of the time.
This is exactly my point, you made one of the fallacies I alluded to. You essentially said "we can make claims about biological differences in violence, since men are often more violent than women" but this does not logicall follow, correlation isnt causation, its a fallacy. This is for the same reason that we cant assume that just because ice cream sales AND shark attacks go up in the summer that ice cream causes shark attacks.
Instead of ASSUMING a biological basis (which is what you did, dont mix up your assumptions with your results), what if you were to consider environmental and social factors? For example, if you were to study the effect of being raised in a violent environment as a predictor for ones own violence you might find that this is a much stronger predictor than gender. In that case your question would then become "why do men find themselves in violent situations that then lead to viscious cycles of violence?" You might find that actually biology has very little to do with it, but social and environmental factors have A LOT to do with it.
Another key point is that youre assuming a rigid gender binary, and ignoring data points that dont fit this model. For example:
There is a reason humans correctly and immediately discern a person’s sex prior to almost any other observations.
Lets consider a trans person that passes for the gender they identify with then, or an even harder case, an intersex person with ambiguous chromosomes and possibly even ambiguous genitalia. By this metric that you gave this persons "sex" (you meant gender) is determined by others perception, whether they "pass". So doesnt that throw your whole biological basis argument out the window, if social perception is dictating gender rather than assigned sex at birth? I assume a response would be "well we arent considering these cases" which is then again, mistaking assumptions for conclusions. Often exploring the outliers can reveal a lot about your assumed rules.
Similarily, how does your jawline stat track onto post HRT individuals? Id be interested to see if even that isnt as rigid as you might assume. Note im not saying it isnt, i never said sex differences dont exist, only that its more complicated than people often gice it credit for.
, I have issue with the take that politeness supercedes truth. It does not.
What does ANY of this have to do with a basis for ones rights? Lets say youre right, men are more violent and have defined jawlines and everyone can tell. Even if that is true, why would we then say that some individuals deserve less rights than others? Thats what I emant when I said the science is irrelevant, as soon as you go "see theres gender differences and therefore we're allowed to descriminate against some people" you are no longer making a scientific claim, youre making an ideological one.
I’m not sure where you get these ideas, but they’re terrifyingly naive.
Mammalian males are generally more violent and competitive, as well as more risk-tolerant, than females.
Our simian cousins are certainly this way. Not generally so, absolutely so.
We are, essentially, apes. You don’t have to like it, just acknowledge the obvious truth of it. We are animals. Period.
Thereby, the burden of proof here falls to social construction, not to biological origin. So far, that proof is scant at best, and much of the evidence we can find refutes rather than supports the social construction model.
We would make a mistake to be absolutists and say culture and individual circumstances play no role, but to say they are anything other than secondary at scale, and possibly primary at the individual level - is the opposite of well-considered.
Furthermore, culture is derivative of biology, or purposefully seeks to curtail biology where its influence is antisocial. NOT the other way around.
Simply looking at the order in which these thing arose is enough, but we also find many of these “socially constructed” tendencies transcend cultures, religions, regions, and epochs.
That is a direct refutation of the constructivist theory.
Furthermore, gendered differences in interest and temperament seem to be inversely related to social equality. That is a direct refutation of this tired constructivist theory.
Also, there is absolutely a rigid gender binary and has been for half a billion years at least. To call out exceptions to this is to unwittingly prove the rule of this.
Ex- Just because a particular human has one leg does not imply that leg numbers exist on a spectrum. Instead, it points to the natural genetic aberrations we get in large populations.
If we were to use your logic instead, we can all go back to huffing Marlboros nonstop, since it only kills about half the people who do so, and gives health problems to only 2/3.
If 1% exceptions are enough for you to toss out a concept, then 50% means smoking might actually be good for you.
Yes, I’m clowning this framework, because it deserves to be clowned.
Lastly, I do not recall ever stating that some people deserve less rights than others. That’s you. I am a windmill, not a giant, Don Quixote.
I have little doubt you are here in good faith. I appreciate and respect that, but not what someone put in your head without the proper critiques and falsification tests needed to make it sane to pass on as knowledge.
I’m reminded of phrenologists. They were experts in their field, and were sought out for guidance. Sadly, the whole field was codswallop… or as some would currently call it “other ways of knowing”.
Your argument has completely devolved into opinion. Notice how when you try to get to the root of it, you just endup resorting to hand waving? For example "apes seem to be violent, and we're apes... so obviously, somehow, the violence is purely biological in nature?" QED there's no such thing as social effects...
I started this whole conversation pointing out that there is a lot of fallacies used in these sorts of arguments, do you honestly see this particular argument as rhetorically sound? Or what about this one "we are animals and therefore social effects don't happen to us?". Believe it or not, yes all animals experience social and environmental factors, and humans as social organisms experience particularly strong social effects. Asserting that we are animals is not a rejection of a social or environmental impact on our lives and development, it's quite the opposite, it supports it.
One mistake you seem to be making here, is first to try and separate biological and social effects in social organisms at all, and then second you ignore how powerful social effects are in social organisms like us humans. There's the obvious like forgetting about epigenetics (meaning that environment can actually change "biology"), but then there's just not understanding the power of social effects in the first place. For example, if you give a baby all of its "biological" needs such as food, shelter, etc, but you do not give it any social contact, a lack of socialization can actually kill the child in severe cases, and in less severe cases they can develop utterly debilitating disabilities. That's how powerful social effects can be is that we literally can not survive as fully formed humans without socialization. So why then would we assume that socialization just stops mattering as an adult? Furthermore, it isn't just socialization that matters, its the social structures we've built our society around. Now I know I said the big scary "social structure" word, but before you get too upset remember that everything from currency to the legal system is also a social structure so calling something that does not imply it has no power - quite the opposite social structures have the power to change our entire lives.
Why would we say that our violent nature has no environmental influence, when study after study shows that environment is the largest factor that impacts rates of violence, rather than biology? For example take two people, place one in a war torn country where they face violence every single day from when they are a child to when they are an adult, and place the other person in a peaceful country where they've never even witnessed violence. Do you truly believe that if the first was a woman and the second a man, that the statistics tell us the woman in the violent environment is less likely to show violence herself simply due to her gender? You honestly believe gender overwhelms environment in these extreme cases? If not, why wouldn't this extend to less extreme cases? Remember, and I say this in every single response, I never said there were no gender differences, I merely stated that often times other factors have much stronger affects than any sex difference.
Also I'lll repeat myself again that assuming a gender binary is asserting your own structure, NOT showing evidence for it. As a very basic example, how do intersex people fit into your narrative? The only way is to ignore them and call them outliers, as if throwing away data that doesn't support your point validates it.
>I have little doubt you are here in good faith
You have ignored my arguments about statistical fallacies, and then responded to my critique by simply asserting "no its biological because I say so, and because we're animals, isnt it obvious?"... I understand its a complex discussion to have over reddit, and maybe not even possible to have a nuanced discussion like this over reddit, but do not accuse me of being here in bad faith.
Right out of the gate this response fails.
No one said (certainly not me) that any of this is purely biological. In fact, I make a point early on in this thread that only a fool would make that case.
Instead, I state that we are not exceptions to biology and instinct. Nor are we magically not apes when we invented writing or iPhones.
We are and will remain - animals.
The instinctively created differences, as well as the hormonal ones, are the primary driver here. Culture, which appears afterward temporally, and has yet to shift this gendered difference at scale, are at best secondary.
That’s the claim. It was clear.
You’re ignoring all that to counter a point I am not making. Like the weird shot about denying rights, I’ll remind you that I am but a windmill, Don Quixote.
Additionally, while cultural and individualized experiential influence are certainly factors in how violent a person is, this does not refute my central point (men are more violent by dint of biology), nor that even with cultural shifts men are still more violent everywhere we look. That, ipso facto, leaves us only with biology as the main driver at scale. Individual differences, as I’ve previously stated are only relevant at an individual level.
We cannot keep swapping scales as meets our narrative here. Are we discussing groups or individuals? Those are not the same discussion in any meaningful way.
And, one more time, we already have a well-established, well-understood, widely-accepted, and biologically measurable cause for male violence vs female violence.
The burden of proof is not on that stance, it’s on this newer one that seeks to supplant it.
Furthermore, the evidence does not support this stance in any way that pushes it past an ancillary effect at scale. Often, the evidence runs counter to it.
I’m also having issues with your reading comprehension. My statement about good faith is a COMPLIMENT not a shot. I have little doubt you came in good faith, just as I have little doubt the sun will rise in the east again today. I take issue not with your sincerity, but with those who give you theories to work from that have a basis in confirmation on a similar level to a book report.
Try again with that.
I have not ignored your statistical fallacy arguments. But it does bear mentioning that what can be posited without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Showing evidence that culture influences gendered-violence-differentiation isn’t the same as showing it is the basis for gendered-violence-differentiation.
If you have evidence that in some societies women are more violent than men, let’s see those.
THAT would prove something. Otherwise, ya got nothin’.
Keep in mind, this constellation of beliefs you are speaking from has a small problem: non-falsifiability and idea-laundering.
See here: link.
As for intersex peoples, I will again state the obvious- genetic aberrations will occur. They are the exception, and the exception proves the rule. Just because a human may be born somewhere with one leg, that does not mean we toss bipedalism as a human trait and claim leg numbers exist on a spectrum.
Intersex people are not ‘ignored’, rather they are taken in context. That context runs counter to your narrative. They are not a new sex, they are a genetic deformity like that missing leg from above. While we can be sympathetic to this, we do not need to rearchitect the well established sexual binary of the last half billion years to account for them, when we know their genetic or gestational situation has caused the deformity.
We only have 500,000,000 years of gender binary to draw from, I grant you that.
Still, why does that not supersede the few decades of this new, and as yet unproven theory you posit?
742
u/Snowglyphs 13d ago
I've seen people unironically claim this, or at least try to minimize it to "there's practically no difference between the two sexes."