zom said:
You have laid out the most basic of gender roles, namely..... something's effect on gender roles? Logic follow doesn't.... Your example didn't logically follow
1. Really. You don't see any logical connection between the
ability to have children and then provide their food source and the assigned role that you are better suited to actually
do so. You
really claim not to see a gender role in
war.
2. Saying something "doesn't logically follow" isn't actually an effective counter-argument - you have to be able to
demonstrate your reasoning, and preferably, back it with data, as I have done for you.
Are you currently in college?
There is no evidence I'm aware of to conclude that any species other than us has a sense of gender. How you came to the conclusion that they not only have gender but are subject to gender roles is beyond me.
I managed to pass middle school science. But if you need to review, then that's okay
A book, if you like.
Actually there is if you read pretty much any study on gender.
Funny, then, how you haven't actually cited any.
Biological Limits of Gender Construction and
Gender and Parenthood from a 30 second google search. Feel free to add it to the previously cited study on the sharpening of gender roles based off of biological advantage in agricultural societies.
There is no evidence to support that these aren't largely the result of gender roles and socialization (besides testosterone).
Really. There is no evidence to support the claim that women's ability to produce milk for the feeding of small infants is a
biological, rather than a socialized, development?
:lamo
Even so, I am not saying that there are not different physical and sometimes mental traits between the two conventionally perceived sexes. I don't know what you're trying to argue besides "Call everyone a female who has a vagina because I don't care about people and think solidly rooted definitions can't be inaccurate and change, and that this perception matters more than people.
Ah.
And now we get rather to the heart of it. You want to affirm
people, and that is behind your arguments, not the science. As a result, when people point out to you the deep problems in that position, you are reduced to accusing them of opposing your
motivations rather than your
conclusions.
Recommended Reading
Or, if a book is too long, a review from a source friendly to your worldview.
Or, hey, you're part of the
Youtube Generation.