???

!!!

I believe that genetic programming inclines dogs to walk on four legs, and humans to walk on two - but I have seen dogs walking on only their hind legs, and I have seen humans on all fours.

These were frankly silly refutations, because dogs go up on two legs only when they are "begging" or greeting, and humans only go on four legs if they are kidding around or looking for something. What you do not see is animals going against their instinctual behavior often, because their brains are not sophisticated enough for reasoning and complex choices. That is not the case for human beings, however.

Genetic programming does not make something "impossible to resist", it just makes one pattern of behavior more likely.

Yet human behavior patterns and choices have most often followed a variety of environmental factors, rather than proving immutable.

Humans in particular are remarkably adaptive creatures. I can cook dinner or sew on buttons in a pinch, just as women can swing a hammer or calculate a trajectory in a pinch - but there is a reason why most of us stick to traditional gender roles most of the time. Doing otherwise is a lot like that dog walking on its hind legs.

No, doing otherwise comes with stigma and negative expectations from society. We underestimate the power of these artificial societal forces at our folly. And it's an equal follow to blame them on immutable genetic factors.

Of course there are exceptions - but we aren't all exceptions.

There are far too many people who "go against the grain" whenever the societal opportunities present themselves to be relegated to mere "exceptions."

LOL. Of course there are a few badass women who can beat the average man, but there's a reason why men's and women's athletics are kept separate in almost every sport.

A few? Try most of the women who do take up martial arts for a lengthy period of time. Women are generally faster than men, and can get past a typical man's defenses more often than another man. They also have greater stamina and tolerance for pain than men overall, which can also be a great advantage when paired off against men. Though men are typically stronger in the upper body, women's lower bodies are quite strong, and they are typically more flexible, which makes their kicks more dangerous than men -- if they receive the proper training.

Why do you not see this more often? Because women have been heavily socially conditioned for millennia for reasons I mentioned before to perceive that it's "unladylike" to fight or defend themselves, or play the role of warrior, and that they are supposed to rely on men to protect them, and even to find men with fighting skills attractive. However, in a more civilized world, these attributes are less important for men, and the continued attraction for such men is an archaic carry-over element, since intellectual men can easily earn more than "warriors" (e.g., police officers, soldiers, security guards, bouncers) in the modern age. Scientists and journalists often travel the world and discover new things at least as often as "warriors" do in the modern age. Further, more women are electing to become police officers and security guards themselves.

A long time ago when I competed in an individual sport in local competition, I was middling among the men, and roughly equal with the most competitive women. The biggest advantage that a woman has in a fight with a man is that the man is typically trying not to hurt her.

Because you likely came across women with no special training, or participating in sports where their specific attributes have no great advantage over men. Men are obviously superior to women in football, since that sport requires a lot of upper body strength when it comes to taking and withstanding hits (though women could likely do well as kickers if more of them were inclined). The same with boxing, because it's a fighting sport that puts a huge emphasis on the upper body. However, see how well men do against women in sports like volley ball or basketball, where speed, stamina, and reflexes are more important than sheer physical resilience.

Finally, there are plenty of men who are naturally meek, non-aggressive, and just flat out not fighters. At the same time, there are any number of women who naturally aggressive with natural fighting skills. The former type of man would likely not do so well against the latter type of woman.

These two ideas are not contradicting each other. We should expect that most people will more or less want to conform to gender roles, and we should treat everyone on a case-by-case basis. Why is this difficult to understand?

There are a few women who have figured out a way to successfully use a urinal, but that doesn't mean most women want urinals in women's restrooms - and certainly not a whole row of them like you see in men's restrooms - nor should "equality" mean that we remove urinals from men's restrooms just because most women don't use them. We build restrooms to meet the needs of most of those using them while allowing options for those that want something else. We should build a culture the same way. It is irresponsible, insulting, and counterproductive to do otherwise.

These two ideas are not contradicting each other. We should expect that most people will more or less want to conform to gender roles, and we should treat everyone on a case-by-case basis. Why is this difficult to understand?

Because I disagree with you, and profoundly, that "most" people would adhere to gender roles under any given circumstances, and within any type of possible environment in which people might find themselves living. I won't ask why that is difficult for you to understand, because you insist upon genetic determinism as the rule.

There are a few women who have figured out a way to successfully use a urinal, but that doesn't mean most women want urinals in women's restrooms -

Again, a silly example that attempts to distract from our debate rather than confront the matter at hand. Yes, the penis and vagina require different modes of waste extraction, etc. However, that is not the same thing as having inborn talents and desires that do not require a specific type of plumbing.

nor should "equality" mean that we remove urinals from men's restrooms just because most women don't use them.

Again, it's silly to suggest that I did, or would, suggest that. This is what our friend Markaba would call a "red herring" (remember how fond he was of using that term? Of course you do, since your memory is almost as good as Qtns's and Dante's).

We should build a culture the same way. It is irresponsible, insulting, and counterproductive to do otherwise.

I would argue that it's irresponsible, insulting, and counterproductive to build a society based upon certain arbitrary expectations, since that invariably leads to stigma and various forms of social penalization for the many that these gender (or age) based expectations do not work for, and who thus do not try to adhere to them in order to make society at large happy. Claiming "most" will want to live up to those expectations is akin to the antis claiming that most younger people want to live exactly as they are today, and the laws and social rules/expectations have nothing to do with it. We cannot be selective in allowing full choice on a case-by-case basis for different groups of people based on to what degree it may be convenient for us, nor should we ever assume that "most" people of every age and gender will want this or that, or is best suited for this or that. Otherwise, you insult the notion of freedom of choice. And freedom of choice means being freedom from pre-set expectations.

I am glad that we are in agreement on this.

We are in agreement on this, I think, to the extent that each of us would be cool with women making this particular choice.

I think the biggest difference is in our estimate of how many women prefer traditional gender roles, and particularly my belief that many women have been pushed by social forces to adopt behaviors contrary to their preferences.

We need to let women on a wide basis decide for themselves if this is the case or not. I do not think the "third wave feminist"/SJW movement has had more influence on pushing huge numbers of women to do contrary to what is "normal" for them than the previous system of norms that placed certain expectations on them to uphold specific norms and traditions that hold certain power structures in place that have nothing to do with the natural world. I think you support the notion that you do because you believe the traditions are worth upholding. I do not; I believe traditions will stand the test of time or not based upon how well they actually work for everyone. This includes traditions that favor flexibility as needed. Most of our society's traditions most definitely do not.

Most people tend to go along with whatever the trend-setters in their group do,

Indeed, and guess who the biggest trend-setters have always been?

and this seems particularly true of women, who for various evolutionary reasons tend to be much more group-oriented than men.

I think you far too often confuse biological evolution with socially-influenced changes. Men have also wanted to follow the herd, which is why they are every bit as conformist as women, which is why so many of them have become SJWs themselves.