JackOfSpades
Well-known member
Well, yes I concede correlation, but not that the tenancies are caused solely by their anatomic state, or possibly at all. I do agree with some of what Opaline has said, and is making valid and acceptable points. I just don't think gender(or the more accurate term I should be using is "sex") alone is an important distinction between two people. Aggressiveness, or that "killer instinct" may be an important quality to some come election time. When looking at the two candidates, deciding whether or not they have a killer instinct could take into consideration their genders tenancies, but when it comes down to it, it looking at whether or not they have the quality. Lot's of women do have it, and lot's of men don't (I don't). Saying because she's a women she doesn't have the quality, that's a bad generalization in my opinion. That's all I was trying to say, that being a man or women is not the cause of having the quality.
Yes, but youre assuming youre going to be able to "know" or "see" this quality or others. And I'm not just talking about a very public hiring like an election, but private ones too, as is the case with babysitters, animal care workers, whatever the case may be. There's a lot one has to assume and take on good faith, and there is a lot you simply cannot and will not know. And gender breaks some of those ties, in a lot of real world applications.
And you refer to anatomy, and used the term "between their legs". It's not my opinion that those have anything to do with what were talking about. Were talking about thoughts and decisions and inclinations. And that has everything to do with brains, neurology and those things. Which I believe to be different, again, generally speaking.
Last edited: