If gender is a social construct, and women are oppressed by men, why not just be a man?
>>5576887
because transphobia, presumably
>>5576887
something about gender roles being a social construct and not gender itself
>>5576887
Because gender isn't a social construct.
the thought process of the first 'non binary', ladies and gentlemen
>>5576887
Because some people want to be oppressed. And some women just don't care enough to change their gender or give up dick and female benefits
>>5576887
Because of the jews.
>>5576887
looks like sage
The truth is women are not oppressed by men.
The truth is sex traits are not social constructs.
The truth is event if a women pretends to be a man she won't be a man. She'll need male hormones for life to even pretend. If she takes male hormones in life too late her brain will still be a fully developed female brain with the wrong kind of hormones for the female brain, which means she still won't think like a man, but something else. Like a gasoline engine filled up with diesel. And even with male hormones if she begins too late she'll never develop the bone and muscle structures that men have and are able to develop, and her female organs and body and brain will constantly be at war with her. She won't be a man, just a shitty imitation. And the same goes for men who want to go woman. It's "emperor has no clothes" tier reality denial.
The point is it's not men that oppress women but reality. They will never have the innate strength of men. A natural man will always be stronger than a natural women. And as long as society continues to baby women, they will never be pressured like men are to take risks and become better.
The truth is being a man has its good things and bad things just as being a woman has its good things and its bad things. As a male actor, you are disposable. As a male actor, you have no innate worth like women do, and instead you must work to become something worthy. Females are human beings. Males are human doings. Traditional societies were setup the way they were because it's what nature selected. Groups of people who went against it died off. And it was a raw deal for men and women.
Men should be men.
Women should be women.
Unfortunately there are people who have been fucked by nature and have hormonal imbalances or illnesses that make them not want to be the sex they were born. These people are doomed to suffering. No amount of hormones, sex reassignment surgery, or societal acceptance will truly make them happy.
>>5582088
>The truth is women are not oppressed by men.
They're oppressed by the social norms of a male-dominated, patriarchal society. Or at least were in some places in time.
>The truth is sex traits are not social constructs.
Correct, but societal gender norms ARE a social construct, even if based on biological sex differences. Death is biological reality, but the concept of a funeral is a social construct.
>The point is it's not men that oppress women but reality. They will never have the innate strength of men. A natural man will always be stronger than a natural women.
The difference in physical strength is only really relevant in certain circumstances (which are becoming less and less common as societies become more developed) and cannot by itself account for the entirety of the ways men and women are treated differently. Indeed, while I don't know enough about early human prehistory to say for sure one way or another, it seems entirely possible that the strength difference is a CONSEQUENCE of gender roles; women were expected to raise children and work at home, while men had to go out hunting. Thus physical strength became a more relevant criteria of sexual desirability for men than for women. Gender roles like what I just described could most certainly arise solely from the fact that women can bear children while men cannot, a difference in physical strength would not be neccessary.
>A natural man will always be stronger than a natural women.
On average, yes. There are some women who are stronger than some men, it's not like the weakest man is stronger than the strongest woman, as this statement seems to imply.
>>5582088
>The point is it's not men that oppress women but reality
Yeah. A reality imposed by men in which women are inferior.
Biological differences have nothing to do with being treated equally.
Women in general (and many men) suffer from oppression.
There's just one group of women that are more privileged than men: upper-middle and upper class cis white women from first world countries.
Which ironically are the ones that complain the most.
>>5582088
>>5582648
(cont)
> And as long as society continues to baby women, they will never be pressured like men are to take risks and become better
This I agree with. Granting women the same legal privileges granted to men is not by itself sufficient to achieve gender equality, that will require either eliminating the preferential treatment women recieve, or extending it to everyone (in which case it will no longer be preferential treatment)
>Men should be men.
>Women should be women.
If by this you mean every individual should follow the social role typical of their biological sex, I have to disagree. Not every male has the traits typical of males that make the male role suitable, and the same is true with regards to women. And exceptions can be made for individuals without requiring a total restructuring of society. For example, a male who happens to be weaker than most women should not be chosen for a job requiring physical strength simply because men tend to be stronger, and if he was competing for the position with a woman who is stronger than the average man, she would obviously be preferable. Gender roles and tendencies (like the statistics of physical strength) are to be used in making generalizations, since you don't always have the time, energy, or even ability to learn about everyone's individual abilities. However, in situations where you do have specific information on the individual, that should override the general assumptions and tendencies. It would be clearly fallacious to reason along the lines of "women are weaker than men on average, therefore this woman who is known to be stronger than the average man is likely to be weaker than the average man."
>>5582088
>>5582690
(cont)
>Unfortunately there are people who have been fucked by nature and have hormonal imbalances or illnesses that make them not want to be the sex they were born. These people are doomed to suffering. No amount of hormones, sex reassignment surgery, or societal acceptance will truly make them happy.
They'll always be at a disadvantage, but they aren't alone: the same is true of those with physical or mental disabilities, those abused as children, etc. And that doesn't mean action cannot or should not be taken to reduce their suffering as much as possible and allow them to live an enjoyable, productive life.
Because some men have to devote themselves to infiltrate the safe space of wimmins to learn how to best oppress them.
Needless to say they're all AGP fetishists.
>>5582088
>Males are human doings.
Oh jesus, go back to Return of Kings and jack off with the rest of your oppressed gender.
