#Gender

Is gender a social construct like "race"?

Is abortion worse than slavery?

This debate explores the relationship between free will and gender identity, and the implications for individual and social well-being. It presents two opposing arguments: one that views free will and determinism as compatible, and one that views them as incompatible. The debate examines the definitions, assumptions, evidence, and counterarguments of each position, and evaluates their strengths and weaknesses. The debate aims to provide a nuanced and balanced perspective on the complex and controversial issues of free will and gender identity.

I hope this to be entertaining. Feel free to criticize either position for a more elaborate response.

There are many medium IQ women, you may go 'oh duh there's also many medium IQ men'... Actually, not quite as many at all.

Men are more diverse than women are in most things other than fashion.

If you even include fashion and focus on fashion that's natural (as in natural hair on face, natural way of toning one's body, natural posture variation) men again have more variation than women. There is something both genetic and social that leads to males growing up more stratified than women and it makes a lot of sense if you think of the role they played while we evolved but why it's maintained in spite of feminism is that women don't have a reason to want to fight it, if anything men might.

So, over time, the need for women to bet the social gel and 'supporters' hasn't reduced, they don't tend to want hyper-specialised roles in anything (I said tend to, not any hard and fast rule here at all). They support 'jack of all trades' type work in a professional setting and the best at any specialty is typically a male, across the board outside of the arts and perhaps live interpretation/translation as these accentuate female lateral thinking intelligence which is able to dip in and out of various subjects at once and such.

I am going to now shift into what the title of this thread is.

The title of this thread is about high value women and high value men. I believe firmly there are more very high value men than very high value women out there and more very low value men that are completely undesirable to all straight women and even gay men than the inverse (low value women).

The reason I believe this is just as true there as with IQ is that men who are unappealing tend to embrace it in ways even the most ardent 'I'm an independent woman, fuck the patriarchy' women don't really branch away from. All women want to feel beautiful, all women want to feel desired (not sexually necessarily but I mean their presence desired). There exist men that have 0 intention at all of feeling desired, they don't lash out in response to it, they just totally lack the care for socialisation altogether.

If you think I'm being unfairly sexist, why is it you can find me plenty of male hermits totally satisfied with their completely solitary life but you probably can find me precisely zero female equivalents?

The reason is that women all actively want to be wanted, so this firstly explains why the extreme 'low value' end tends to 'correct themselves' to some degree with adapting their accent, makeup etc. I am not saying 0% are low value and happy being it, I am saying the percent is severely low and those that are find other ways to be wanted. Since I do believe only males exist that have no desire to be wanted and desired, I think that this means that women who are severely low value even if dedicated to die single and totally satisfied with their sex toys or totally asexual, tend to unintentionally 'correct' their behaviour and looks as their life progresses simply out of an involuntary urge to feel wanted and seen as beautiful.

This, however, does not explain the other end of this sexist idea. Why are there more extremely high value males than the equivalent in females? This is a much harsher truth and if you deny it that's totally fine. I am here to be proven wrong even.

When men are high value, they tend to develop an ego relating to it. Women do the same thing but the problem is this leads to them involuntarily acting less feminine and less high value in a womanly way. If you, for instance, imagine a woman that's super fit, super good looking, has high empathy and despite said empathy is not some humble pushover in the slightest and knows her worth in the dating market, is she going to operate in a feminine or masculine way? Of course, she will operate like a male player does and the problem is even she doesn't mean to do that. She wants to feel in over her head with a man that is too good to be true that grounds her and makes her feel fulfilled being his feminine, supportive nurturer. She wants to have fun with him, let him take the lead and entertain her, guide her and be the light in her life as she tries her best to fuel said flame and enjoy its burn. This is what she wants but to be that and realise she is one of the most desired flame-fuellers around is a major problem.

This problem in human beings stems from the fact that we are one of the only animals, not just mammals but all animal species in the entire animal kingdom other than insects and invertibrae to have more typically expected beauty and desirability from our females than our males. If you think I'm bullshitting, imagine for a moment the typical female of any ethnicity. Now, imagine the typical male of that same ethnicity. You don't need to be very bisexual to realise that the women is almost definitely appealing while the man you imagined was not only harder to imagine but also hard to pinpoint because a lot of things about a guy that is preferred makes him atypical. In contrast, I want you to imagine a female dog (not a pun) of whatever breed you like the most, now imagine a male dog of that same breed. Almost everything in the male will be more defined and easier to pinpoint as striking, majestic, alluring, whereas the female has probably got the more 'background character' look. In humans the typical male is very varied to begin with and the average almost barely exists. Typical females exist within every ethnicity and excluding the variation in skin tone specifically and hair colouring variance, you can generally imagine 'her' with ease because enough females actually try to fit that or end up fitting that.

If I am confusing you on what the fuck I am saying, I want you to stick to very easy species like lions, peacocks or gorillas. In lions and gorillas the males are very defined, the females are very undefined. You can easily imagine a very 'male' gorilla and what that entails, same with lion and in other species it's still true (other than humans) but the females of those species are more close to each other very extremely even. The reason this is important to understand is that while that's true in humans under my theory, what's different is that females try so much more to be beautiful and high value in the first place.

Female donkeys are not fighting hard to impress the males, it's always the other way around. Humans have the competition work both ways around and actually end up with males going after the females that impress them most often enough that the term 'simp' for all other species (except insects and invertibrae) would refer to the females but for humans was aimed at males. In summary, most, not all, women can only be so high value among our species before they push over into being the masculine lion/silverback-gorilla type in their aura rather than the feminine being seeking to fuel the flame that I referred to before. Peacocks, lions and gorillas make it much clearer what exactly I am saying here.

The problem then becomes if you have a very high value woman, only she can bear the child so in polyamory that has 1 apex female and many males, it doesn't work like insects or rats can work, the reason is that our women have 1 child and it's a very demanding process even after the pregnancy. That means only for the sake of 'love' can that operate and if so she's going to have to share the men anyway unless they want to truly swap gender roles or hire babysitters and not really do the parenting. I am not saying relationships revolve around family and children as such but on the basic level of how we make high value mean things for each gender, it does.

A high value male is able to push to be apex more often than the equivalent in female because the way he carries himself, the cockiness, steadfastness, self-assuredness etc. if combined with high enough responsibility and empathy such that he isn't a total jackass but just half a jackass who can tone it down for those he's close to enough of the time, is a masculine beast that the women with chemistry could indeed feel fulfilled by. On the other hand, women that push to be high value and succeed end up carrying themselves in a very masculine way as just described and that instantly values them back towards the mean/median (often enough for it to result in a medium-value majority more severe than in men, not all the time but often enough).

2 genders and sexes, no switching or in between. That's what some people believe.

Others say that there are 2 sexes, but more than 2 genders.

What do you guys think?