• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Are Humans Hard Wired to Prefer Men as Leaders?

Abortion is the most fundamental women's rights issue that exists....

Beyond Trump's non-stop 4 years of assault on the most fundamental women's right there is, their reproduction, here is a few other things Trump and the GOP did to destroy women's rights:

Trump ordered the EEOC to halt the collection of data about men and women's pay, which is neccessary to enforce laws protecting women's rights not to be discriminated against.

Trump filed a motion to have the court rule against adopting the ERA as the 28th Amendment, without with women do not have equal rights under the existing Constitution.

Trump has weakened laws that protect women's rights against sexual assault and violence but narrowing the acts those laws apply to.

The most important legislation in US history regarding protecting women from violent assaults against their rights, the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, is currently no longer in effect b/c most Republicans in the House voted against it's reauthorization, and the Republicans in the Senate have refused for 2 years to allow it to be debated voted on.

Yep, republicans are bad for women. To counter that, the democrats put forth the Equality Act, which does not include sex as a characteristic at all.

As far as I'm concerned, as a woman, neither of the two major US parties are doing me any favors right now, and both are doing their damnedest to force me out of society and back into the kitchen.

False equivalence drivel. The Equality Act does not eliminate the rights of women or females, no matter how defined, despite your bigoted transphobic attempts to equate a women accidentally glimpsing a penis in a locker room with the kinds of actual predatory coercive assault that Republicans are trying to enable and shield from prosecution. You might as well being claiming that gay rights is equal to legalizing pedophilia (as the GOP has tried to do for many decades).

And it's interesting that you now imply you agree with my post, despite the fact that I directly exposed the immense stupidity of your following false claims: "Trump did not take action against women's rights", "nor did he campaign on that issue", "nor did he express such a viewpoint" , "he didn't do anything against women's rights", "the republicans as a whole have only one element of their party that is against the rights of women, and that's in the very narrow field of abortion rights"

The latter is not only empirically false, but it displays severe ignorance about the fundamental principle of all rights that is attacked by abortion restrictions, thus making it far from "a very narrow" issue.
 
Has it?

It seems concealed carry permits didn't lead to an explosion of gun deaths.

Stand your ground laws have led to a marginal increase of needless killings.

Transgender restroom rules haven't led to an increase of sexual harassment or assault.

I'm just saying if I knew which blacks were entering the store to shop instead of shoplift, I'd have no real complaints about it.

Alright. Let's take your premise as a starting point.

Do females commit sexual crimes at the same rate as males? Are the rates close between males and females?
Do females engage in voyeurism, hidden cameras of intimate moments, hiding in port-a-potties, and other peeping-tom activities at the same rate as males? Are the rates close between males and females?

What laws or social norms are currently in place to prevent of or mitigate sexual crimes and voyeuristic activities from occurring in bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers? Do you think those current policies are effective or completely ineffective?
 
The outcome is that those spaces now become accessible to any man who wishes to enter.

Do you have any evidence at all that trans people commit voyeurism 1. more often or 2. specifically as a result of trans inclusion or that voyeurism has increased as a result of trans inclusion?

Does it matter? Even if trans people do not commit those activities at any different rate than others of their same sex... what will prevent non-trans-males from taking advantage of a law which allows self-declaration of gender identity with no requirement for diagnosis, treatment, or visible transition? What will prevent perfectly cis-heteronormative males from identifying as non-binary in order to gain access to those spaces?
 
Has it?

It seems concealed carry permits didn't lead to an explosion of gun deaths.

Stand your ground laws have led to a marginal increase of needless killings.

Transgender restroom rules haven't led to an increase of sexual harassment or assault.

I'm just saying if I knew which blacks were entering the store to shop instead of shoplift, I'd have no real complaints about it.

Alright. Let's take your premise as a starting point.

Do females commit sexual crimes at the same rate as males? Are the rates close between males and females?
Do females engage in voyeurism, hidden cameras of intimate moments, hiding in port-a-potties, and other peeping-tom activities at the same rate as males? Are the rates close between males and females?

What laws or social norms are currently in place to prevent of or mitigate sexual crimes and voyeuristic activities from occurring in bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers? Do you think those current policies are effective or completely ineffective?

So you can provide no evidence that changes in laws regarding bathrooms and transgenders have led to any increase in harassment or assault.
 
The outcome is that those spaces now become accessible to any man who wishes to enter.

Do you have any evidence at all that trans people commit voyeurism 1. more often or 2. specifically as a result of trans inclusion or that voyeurism has increased as a result of trans inclusion?

Does it matter? Even if trans people do not commit those activities at any different rate than others of their same sex... what will prevent non-trans-males from taking advantage of a law which allows self-declaration of gender identity with no requirement for diagnosis, treatment, or visible transition? What will prevent perfectly cis-heteronormative males from identifying as non-binary in order to gain access to those spaces?

What's to stop them from just walking in right now?
 
False equivalence drivel. The Equality Act does not eliminate the rights of women or females, no matter how defined, despite your bigoted transphobic attempts to equate a women accidentally glimpsing a penis in a locker room with the kinds of actual predatory coercive assault that Republicans are trying to enable and shield from prosecution. You might as well being claiming that gay rights is equal to legalizing pedophilia (as the GOP has tried to do for many decades).

It's not transphobic to want to maintain sex-segregated spaces for times when females are particularly exposed or vulnerable. I have no dislike or hatred of transgender people, but I also have a lot of experience with actually being female - including the objectification and sexualization that is an every-day element of life for females. I'm well aware that the oppression of women throughout history has been on the basis of our sex, not our gender identity. And I'm well aware that females are the victims of sexual crimes by a landslide more than males, and that males are the perpetrators of those sexual crimes over 90% of the time.

I'm also cognizant of the fact that a law which allows people the RIGHT to access intimate spaces on the basis of their internal feelings, in a way that cannot be verified by any bystander, will actually result in the RIGHT of any male to enter female spaces, whether they're actually transgender or not. This, in short, means that females no longer have a right to object to penis-havers being in our presence when we're naked - that right, that very simple element of dignity and autonomy over who we allow to see us while naked, is effectively revoked.

Females no longer have the right to refuse to be viewed by males while naked. Our consent is no longer required. The very notion of us having the agency to consent, or to refrain from consent, is eliminated.
 
Does it matter? Even if trans people do not commit those activities at any different rate than others of their same sex... what will prevent non-trans-males from taking advantage of a law which allows self-declaration of gender identity with no requirement for diagnosis, treatment, or visible transition? What will prevent perfectly cis-heteronormative males from identifying as non-binary in order to gain access to those spaces?

What's to stop them from just walking in right now?

Right now, if a person who looks like a man walks in, the females in those spaces are allowed and empowered to speak up and ask them to leave, or to complain to management to remove them from the room. If a clearly male-bodied person comes into the shower, it is acceptable and completely justifiable for a female to react with worry and fear.

Sometimes we may choose not to make a deal of it, sometimes we might assess the situation and decide there's no worry. But we have the ability to object to the presence of a male in those spaces.

This changes that dynamic, in a significant way. This creates a situation where a female cannot object, cannot complain to management, cannot ask them to leave. Because all they need do is utter the magic words "I'm a transwoman". And any objection that a female has in that situation is now cast as her being a bigot and a transphobe.

Because gender identity, a completely internal and subjective feeling, trumps biological fact in these cases.

In countries where similar laws have passed, and similar social norms have been pushed, rape shelters and domestic violence refuges are being shut down and losing their funding.... because they refused admittance to a male-presenting person who claimed to be a transwoman. Despite the fact that females outnumber males by an immense margin in cases of rape and domestic violence, these shelters are now required to allow male-bodied people to stay their on their self-declaration. And if they don't comply, they get shut down, often they get threatened and vandalized as well. And those that do comply and allow self-declared transwomen in have seen multiple cases of completely inappropriate behavior - sexual solicitation, leering, and open masturbation.

Male-bodied people are being placed in female prison wings, despite their history of violence and assault, and despite their completely intact genitalia. The men's prison is viewed as dangerous to transwomen, and a cruel punishment because it doesn't affirm their gender. The answer then is to place those offenders in the women's prison, and apparently it's not considered cruel punishment to put females at increased risk of rape while confined against their will with a person of the opposite sex. The UK and Canada both have had multiple cases of transwomen inmates raping female inmates.

This act makes it so that areas where females would normally accept vulnerability, nudity, and exposure to other females must now allow males in as well. Because at the end of the day, there is no way at all to determine whether a person is a transwoman or a cisman.
 
Does it matter?

Does it matter if you have evidence for your claims? Yes, it does.

Okay. Let's give it a few years so that you can measure the number of females that get raped or abused as a result of the giant gaping loophole in this law. Then, once those necessary sacrifices and collateral damage have been tallied up so that you have proof that people will take advantage of obvious loopholes to do bad things... well, then maybe you'll take a few minutes and give some thought to whether or not the number of injured females is high enough to merit trying to close that loophole...
 
Okay. Let's give it a few years so that you can measure the number of females that get raped or abused as a result of the giant gaping loophole in this law.

Yeah, sure, I'm evil because I'm asking you for evidence. Ok, whatever. :rolleyes:
 
Full disclosure... I'm also mightily pissed that the only reason that SEX is being added for non-discrimination to the 1964 Equal Rights bill is because MALE people who identify as women want it. FEmales have not had equal rights in the US.

Additionally... Some definitions:

(2) GENDER IDENTITY.—The term ‘gender identity’ means the gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.

(3) INCLUDING.—The term ‘including’ means including, but not limited to, consistent with the term’s standard meaning in Federal law.

(4) SEX.—The term ‘sex’ includes—
(A) a sex stereotype;
(B) pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition;
(C) sexual orientation or gender identity; and
(D) sex characteristics, including intersex traits.

(5) SEXUAL ORIENTATION.—The term ‘sexual orientation’ means homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.

So. Here we have a bill originally put forth as to amend the constitution so that women have equal rights to men in the US, and which has never actually passed. Only now, it has been revised so that discrimination on the basis of sex becomes sex or gender identity or sexual orientation. Furthermore, the term "gender identity" gets defined prior to the term "sex", which is what the whole thing was supposed to be about in the first place. Badly defined at that. And then, just to really kind of rub it in... the first element of the definition of sex is "sex stereotypes"? WTF?

At the end of the day, the only reason that half the fucking country gets to be acknowledged as semi-equal is because transgender people - who are disproportionally male - want it to happen. And then, it only gets on the docket by requiring that males who declare themselves to be women by identity get to have access to anything that females have access to.
 
Furthermore, the term "gender identity" gets defined prior to the term "sex", which is what the whole thing was supposed to be about in the first place.

The terms that are displayed are in alphabetical order, like a dictionary. We do not read a dictionary and infer that the author thought aardvarks are more important than bananas.

At the end of the day, the only reason that half the fucking country gets to be acknowledged as semi-equal is because transgender people - who are disproportionally male - want it to happen.

Your inference is fallacious--i.e, post hoc ergo propter hoc. It is true that the liberal-minded in the US now support transgender rights but that doesn't mean that this bill has extra umph because "males who declare themselves to be women" have more power and influence. No, what has happened is that liberal-minded people have become more liberal and so those people who supported women's rights now also support transgender rights for the most part. So they are asking for more than they have in the past.
 
It's not transphobic to want to maintain sex-segregated spaces for times when females are particularly exposed or vulnerable.
I'd have to say it is.
You're afraid of being in a locker room with Wendy Carlos, because of medical history and imaginary crime potential, but not concerned about, say, Ghislane Maxwell having had access to every ladies room and unisex bathroom on six continents.
 
Whenever she sees a trans woman in a bathroom, she remembers she needs to go wash the dishes, apparently?
No, it's more that there's no way to determine whether the person is a transwoman or a man. The outcome is that those spaces now become accessible to any man who wishes to enter. And that increases the risk of assault to women, as well as voyeurism and exhibitionism.

I’m trying to parse this and understand what on earth you think stops men currently from cross-dressing and going into a womens room if they are bent on voyerism, or what on earth you think stops men dressed like men from going in if they are bent on assault...

And I’m coming up empty. They already can do that. They already DO do that.
The presence of ctual trans people doesn’t change the current condition in any meaningful way. Except, I suppose, possibly deterring violent men because they’ll be surprised and horrified to encounter a trans woman instead of a cis woman?


If there were any reasonable way to identify who is a transwoman and who is a man with malicious motives, I'd have no real complaints about it.

There is no reasonable way to identify who is a CIS woman and a man with malicious motives, unless you plan to make me flash my lady parts to get into a bathroom?
 
Everybody seems to agree on that men are overrepresented when it comes to sex crimes and violent crimes. I think we can expand that. Men are overrepresented when it comes to any extreme behaviour. ANY. Good or bad. So why is it controversial to say that it would therefore include sacrificing everything else in order to gain power? It's no mystery that so few women are entrepreneurs. That job requires years of dedication with little or no reward, and you're likely to fail. Until you succeed, if you ever succeed, everybody is going to think you're insane and a loser. Women aren't going to put up with that shit. If they do they will be exceedingly rare specimens.

Any type of work that requires singular dedication at great personal cost and sacrifice will have a majority of men in it. The only example I can think of where this isn't the case is raising children, or taking care of sick family.

Another interesting thing in this thread I've noticed, that just admitting any gender differences means that people like Politesse will brand them as chauvinist. That's the debate climate we have now. It's not particularly helpful and will not lead to meaningful discussions. A dichotomy where we have to be postmodernist feminists on one end or we're the devil, is a waste of time.
 
You're really bad at googling, then, as you should have hit upon a basic description of Mosuo political structure within the first few pages the search engine suggested to you. All meaninglful authority in Mosuo society outside of the official Chinese govenrment is family based, and the head of the family is its eldest female member, called the Ah mi of her clan. All economic, social, and political control ultimately come back to her "office", symbolized by her ownership of a private room and the keys to the family larder, passed down matrilineally.

I didn't try very hard - my curiosity doesn't run that deep - but I found this:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...e-tibetan-tribe-where-a-man-is-never-the-boss
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuhd3lRF7CY
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiefdom_of_Yongning
https://thediplomat.com/2020/08/the-decline-of-chinas-kingdom-of-women/

Definitely a matriarchial society: women own the land and the property, and make the rules. They mostly seem to exert control other women: women have strict social roles which involve a lot of work and motherhood is virtually compulsory (either by bearing children or adopting). The men seem to have no power but are also relatively free from social obligations and do less work than women. So basically, it's matriarchal but women still get the short end of the stick. Also it seems like there used to be a Mosuo chiefdom with a male chieftain, but that ended in the fifties. I'm guessing the Chinese government made him obsolete, leaving the Mosuo as a collection of matriarchal households.
 
You're really bad at googling, then, as you should have hit upon a basic description of Mosuo political structure within the first few pages the search engine suggested to you. All meaninglful authority in Mosuo society outside of the official Chinese govenrment is family based, and the head of the family is its eldest female member, called the Ah mi of her clan. All economic, social, and political control ultimately come back to her "office", symbolized by her ownership of a private room and the keys to the family larder, passed down matrilineally.

I didn't try very hard - my curiosity doesn't run that deep - but I found this:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...e-tibetan-tribe-where-a-man-is-never-the-boss
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuhd3lRF7CY
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiefdom_of_Yongning
https://thediplomat.com/2020/08/the-decline-of-chinas-kingdom-of-women/

Definitely a matriarchial society: women own the land and the property, and make the rules. They mostly seem to exert control other women: women have strict social roles which involve a lot of work and motherhood is virtually compulsory (either by bearing children or adopting). The men seem to have no power but are also relatively free from social obligations and do less work than women. So basically, it's matriarchal but women still get the short end of the stick. Also it seems like there used to be a Mosuo chiefdom with a male chieftain, but that ended in the fifties. I'm guessing the Chinese government made him obsolete, leaving the Mosuo as a collection of matriarchal households.

Can we at least agree it's a Red Herring? Even if we agree the Musuo is a matriarchy, it's a statistical population of one. Not much to base a theory on. And since it's in Communist China, where the government uses all kinds of nefarious ways to destroy the power structures of hill tribes, I'm less and less impressed by this matriarchy.

I see nobody in this thread is saying that women aren't capable of being in power or being leaders. The thread is whether or not humans are hard wired to assume men will be leaders. Considering the lack of women in leadership positions we need to explain it somehow. I'm not seeing any explanations in this thread. I find the postmodernist tradition of blaming it on the patriarchy unconvincing. It's too simplistic an explanation to convince, me at least. It seems to me more likely that what appears as a conspiracy of men (ie patriarchy) is a result of something innate. At least it maches the world we see around us.
 
I see nobody in this thread is saying that women aren't capable of being in power or being leaders. The thread is whether or not humans are hard wired to assume men will be leaders. Considering the lack of women in leadership positions we need to explain it somehow. I'm not seeing any explanations in this thread.
Other than the inertia of biology. Men likely had control due to physical strength. They consolidated it, created rules to enshrine it. Now days that is being reliquished as there is little to make it endure, including the human brain not being wired for it.

People are wired to follow charisma. The gender is irrelevant.
 
I’m trying to parse this and understand what on earth you think stops men currently from cross-dressing and going into a womens room if they are bent on voyerism, or what on earth you think stops men dressed like men from going in if they are bent on assault...

Well, one thing that might have stopped them is that male-bodied people - men - in the past were not able to pretend they were women, and any male person who entered a female space could be called out as violating that space.

And I’m coming up empty. They already can do that. They already DO do that.
The presence of ctual trans people doesn’t change the current condition in any meaningful way. Except, I suppose, possibly deterring violent men because they’ll be surprised and horrified to encounter a trans woman instead of a cis woman?

Transwomen are men. Do you have evidence that transwomen commit crimes against ciswomen at a lower rate than any other male-bodied person?
 
I see nobody in this thread is saying that women aren't capable of being in power or being leaders. The thread is whether or not humans are hard wired to assume men will be leaders. Considering the lack of women in leadership positions we need to explain it somehow. I'm not seeing any explanations in this thread.
Other than the inertia of biology. Men likely had control due to physical strength. They consolidated it, created rules to enshrine it. Now days that is being reliquished as there is little to make it endure, including the human brain not being wired for it.

People are wired to follow charisma. The gender is irrelevant.

I believe the disparity is explained by women traditionally having within home gender roles, and men having outside home gender roles. Instinctively people judge men on their ability to make money (drop an Elk at the tribe's feet), and women on their ability to care for children. Women being outside the home, and sometimes even more successful than their partners is a very new thing.

This may be partly why women have an issue breaking the glass ceiling, they are expected to be both motherly and a leader, which is hard to pull off. I've seen it done, but women in leadership positions are often extremely talented.
 
Back
Top Bottom