Post #4073456

Humans have a small degree of sexual dimorphism. And that extends to neurology. Those minute differences get magnified many fold by cultural norms, but we’re physical beings made of atoms. We’re not disembodied spirits floating in the astral plane. We’re sexually dimorphic on the outside and on the inside. And most of what differences do exist are a function of hormones rather than genetics. en.wikipedia.org/…/Sexual_dimorphism_in_human_phy… An example of this magnification is seen externally in something like size and strength. Men naturally are a bit larger and stronger than women. This is an objective and undeniable physical reality. But what gets tacked onto that is a bunch of stuff that isn’t scientific or rational. People irrationally use this small kernel of truth to conclude that women are unsuitable for certain careers that involve a lot of physical labor. A real physical example of sexual dimorphism gets wildly blown out of proportion by culture. We can acknowledge these differences without embracing stereotypes. We can reject bioessentialism without veering into unscientific mysticism. We don’t need to act like conservatives. We don’t need to pillory someone who acknowledges very real and objective matters of human biology. Velma did not suggest that pregnant woman were stupid, emotional, or incapable of supporting themselves. She simply made reference to objective physically measurable things. It’s disappointing to see someone slander someone as a Terf or to imply that they said things that they never claimed. I get that this can be a triggering topic, but there’s a fine line between rejecting irrational stereotypes and becoming as anti-science as a Republican.