FA+
Shop
Philosophy
10 years ago
God do I hate it when I have to think.
So, as I review my understanding of the distinctions between male and female beings, particularly human beings, I find myself less and less persuaded by the arguments that men and women are at all different. And yes, I am now at the point of thinking that they might not be different -at all-.
No I'm not blind or stupid. I'm aware that one has more developed breast tissue than the other, and one has an external sex organ while the other has an internal one. But drawing upon my feeble knowledge of human anatomy, I came to a few conclusions.
1) Men have nipples. They serve no purpose in a male, but nature didn't design males and female as different things, and it would be a pointless and even detrimental genetic complication to code in "male_nipple = false; female_nipple = true", when you can just say, "human_nipple = true" and sort it out later.
1.a) Both men and women have breast tissue. In females it develops considerably more so than in males, but it still exists in men. Breasts aren't something women have a monopoly on gents.
2) The shape of the primary sex organs is basically inverted from one another. And this related to more than just their appearance; even the functions of organs that we consider wholly distinct seem to resemble one another almost uncannily.
2.a) Women have contractions during orgasm. Again, research has shown there's no reason or benefit for this, but you know who does have a reason and benefits from contractions during orgasm? Men.
And to respond briefly to people who will inevitably cite studies showing trends of differences between men and women, both physically and mentally, I'd say something like, "The observed trends are either a) artificial and reversible (in the case of many physical distinctions) or b) are lesser than the normal variations between human beings."
So, why are there males and females at all? Why aren't we like plants or single celled organisms which can have either sex or both? Simply put, we are more complex organisms and therefor more prone to genetic disease. We already know that genetic diversity is useful for preventing genetic diseases. And having an entire chromosome of difference between men and women, especially when that chromosome dictates reproduction, generates a critical genetic diversity even among a small population.
Furthermore, some physical differences arose simply from the manner in which humans carry children. Bone structure needed to be altered to allow easier child birth. The females, who would bare children, were also the best ones to have the breast tissue needed to feed the child after birth. After all, if the male had the breast tissue and died after fertilization the child would starve to death, while if the female died with child, the child was almost certain to die as well. This way only one person needed to survive to raise the child, rather than both.
I know, very unscientific Valav. Well can it you sexist fuck. It's a narrative based on some things we've observed, just like every other bit of science. We fuckin' run around yelling made up stories at one another as if they were the absolute truth, even though no one ever found the universe's owner manual. Everything we know is merely a narrative extrapolated from what we have observed, and even our observances are prone to error upon error. So why the hell not think I'm right?
Valav out bitches (of every sex and gender).
So, as I review my understanding of the distinctions between male and female beings, particularly human beings, I find myself less and less persuaded by the arguments that men and women are at all different. And yes, I am now at the point of thinking that they might not be different -at all-.
No I'm not blind or stupid. I'm aware that one has more developed breast tissue than the other, and one has an external sex organ while the other has an internal one. But drawing upon my feeble knowledge of human anatomy, I came to a few conclusions.
1) Men have nipples. They serve no purpose in a male, but nature didn't design males and female as different things, and it would be a pointless and even detrimental genetic complication to code in "male_nipple = false; female_nipple = true", when you can just say, "human_nipple = true" and sort it out later.
1.a) Both men and women have breast tissue. In females it develops considerably more so than in males, but it still exists in men. Breasts aren't something women have a monopoly on gents.
2) The shape of the primary sex organs is basically inverted from one another. And this related to more than just their appearance; even the functions of organs that we consider wholly distinct seem to resemble one another almost uncannily.
2.a) Women have contractions during orgasm. Again, research has shown there's no reason or benefit for this, but you know who does have a reason and benefits from contractions during orgasm? Men.
And to respond briefly to people who will inevitably cite studies showing trends of differences between men and women, both physically and mentally, I'd say something like, "The observed trends are either a) artificial and reversible (in the case of many physical distinctions) or b) are lesser than the normal variations between human beings."
So, why are there males and females at all? Why aren't we like plants or single celled organisms which can have either sex or both? Simply put, we are more complex organisms and therefor more prone to genetic disease. We already know that genetic diversity is useful for preventing genetic diseases. And having an entire chromosome of difference between men and women, especially when that chromosome dictates reproduction, generates a critical genetic diversity even among a small population.
Furthermore, some physical differences arose simply from the manner in which humans carry children. Bone structure needed to be altered to allow easier child birth. The females, who would bare children, were also the best ones to have the breast tissue needed to feed the child after birth. After all, if the male had the breast tissue and died after fertilization the child would starve to death, while if the female died with child, the child was almost certain to die as well. This way only one person needed to survive to raise the child, rather than both.
I know, very unscientific Valav. Well can it you sexist fuck. It's a narrative based on some things we've observed, just like every other bit of science. We fuckin' run around yelling made up stories at one another as if they were the absolute truth, even though no one ever found the universe's owner manual. Everything we know is merely a narrative extrapolated from what we have observed, and even our observances are prone to error upon error. So why the hell not think I'm right?
Valav out bitches (of every sex and gender).
