Then I have no idea what you are saying.
No. Should there be a special accommodation in the work environment when women get pregnant? Sometimes, women are not hired or trained because employers fear that the woman will get pregnant and leave (maybe permanently). Sometimes, bearing children is seen as a lack of commitment to a company and women are not promoted as a result.
But you seem to be writing about something else, so I will bow out of this thread.
Morally, probably not. Functionally? Absolutely. There are ideal societies some folks are striving to create that would only function well if gender differences were obliterated. So the answer to your question âfor what purpose*â would be âto create a society like X, which I think is ultimately the best human societyâ. Then youâd have to argue about whether or not X truly is the best, given that it requires obliterating/enforcing gender differences to achieve it. When I say I reject the premise, I mean to say that even if arguments against X fail, I donât think human nature is to be subsumed by utopian goals regardless.
Hasnât that been going on for thousands of years through religions, social philosophies, science advice, and governments? And doesnât that make such efforts a part of âhuman natureâ?
Depends on the method. A change that takes thousands of years to implement, or is a response to some real crisis is much more likely to be in line with human nature than a change that is intiated by a small group of intellectuals deciding among themselves âhow it ought to beâ and then subverting society to actualize it.
Mostly, itâs not an either or situation.There is degrees of saturation,between the two, which can at any time thicken or thin out, depending on consensus, insight and political expediency, and. Has attained the status of games, when played correctly establishes a
balance, albeit not truly transparent nor opaque. It surely is not what was meant by âsynthesisâ. It times it is mostly a matter of interpretation, at other times
one of guidance. The ingenious mix will have a hold if
the mixture is appropriate to application. This hinges on a built in tolerance to levels of doubt bilaterally.
Whether itâs more likely to be inclined to conform with human nature as a driving force, is at times impossible to determine, since human nature as defined may pose problems of interpretations which may be loaded with preferential ideas. I may think otheriwise, that human nature as defined, may pose a problem to itself in regard to in what terms it views itâs self. Sometimes we act in accordance to assumptions of which we have no idea where they came from. I think the entropical process entails a regressive search for origins, and a will to push backward into a separation, into the realm of a search for original models. Which may be a mistake, since qualitative search for beginnings changes the presumed model retroactively.
Oh, come on, James, you know what that connection is. 
Intellectuals attempting that is human nature. Non-intellectuals are trying it every day, merely with less success. Every preacher and pseudo-philosopher is in the act of persuasion toward an ideal. Every law enforcer, father, or moderator is also more physically persuading toward an ideal ⌠not to mention all of the occults and social engineering.
The attempt to alter the world to a preferred state is certainly human nature. With high technology it simply comes much, much faster with less intellectual guidance and less tested (now even morons can do it).
Iâm pretty aware of what it is currently and in the past. I am asking,
âIF you just started the design of male and female over, would you ensure a difference other than reproduction organs?â ⌠And Why?
I know what it used to be in the cave and jungle wilderness. But as societies are developed, survival needs change because a society is a different form of environment and reality (greatly pretentious). Thus what is needed to survive from both male and female change.
Add to that high technology, and the question arises as to whether there is any need for gender at all. Although it would still be a challenge, today if need be, either gender, given enough current technology could create a long term society without the other.
So I am not saying that there is none, but exactly what is the need for gender difference any more?
Only if you don't believe in free will, I suppose, or in that crudest possible sense where "Human nature is just anything any human happens to do". In that sense a monk lighting himself on fire to protest this and that his human nature, or a small cult swearing off sex is human nature. I don't buy that.
Anyway, I think this takes us away from the answer to your question- yes, there is a good reason for their to be a difference between the sexes- some intellectual believing that difference is key to their utopian or political vision. Likewise there is an identicle reason to want to annhiliate that difference- some other intellectual believes it stands in their way. Ultimately, I don't think intellectuals [i]deciding[/i] whether or not we should have things like genders based on how it impacts their personal visions for everybody else's future is healthy. Gender differences are quite clearly real and there and people act according to them in fairly typical and universal ways when left alone to do so.
The need of the difference between males and females is to prevent the extinction of homo sapiens.
And the âfree willâ is merely a relatively free will.
It isnât merely a few who do it now and then. It has been going on since the dawn of Man by a very large portion of the societies in just about every society. The intelectuals merely do it in an intellectual way while others are doing the exact same thing, but in a less intellectual way. And that turns out to be the majority of people, mothers, father, children, scientists, priests, politicians, carpenters ⌠everyone is trying to alter the world to fit their preferences in at least some small, very often stupid way.
If this was 100 years ago, I would probably go along with that. But the truth is that social manipulation has gotten to the extreme point wherein people are already acting in very insidious ways to reform nature even to the point of dispensing with gender entirely (by several ways). It isnât like I am inspiring a new social movement here.
And then since such things are going on anyway, why not get the question out in the open and resolve the question of actual need rather than ignore it and leave it up to the most insidious thinkers on the planet.
But all that is going to happen is that âhomo-sapianâ is going to be gradually redefined until it has actually been extinct for a very long time before anyone notices; âmutantsâ, cyborgs, Rev2, ânew and improvedâ,âŚ
At the very least, there are different health and safety concerns that correspond to the physiological differences between genders. So, from, say, a medical perspective, gender differences are important. There are also gender differences in crime rates and social risks that are important to recognize.
Because the question doesnât have an answer. Whatâs the purpose of the difference between men and women? Whatâs the purpose of ANYTHING other than in how it relates to some agenda? Whatâs the purpose in having people at all? If you define things according to their purpose, then you are granting the insidious thinkers the lionâs share of their argument already- that things persist or can be done away with based on how they fit into their designs. Thatâs what should be criticized.
Right, case in point. So whatâs the purpose of anything then? Purpose as you seem to be using it is a teleological question- the only possible answer to a question of purpose is âBecause God wants it that wayâ or âBecause Marx needs it that way to accomplish Xâ or âbecause the citizens of Iceland want it that wayâ or something similar. Answering such a question with an answer based on material conditions is a category error. If youâd asked the purpose of gender differences in the natural sciences forum, the answer would have something to do with reproduction and that would be the right answer- because in that context the question isnât teleological, and thus the fact that it might not be needed later is irrelevant to the question of what itâs purpose is today.
But this is still in the making. The process has not ended yet. And as long as it has not ended yet, we should do what we use to do. And donât underestimate the coincidence!
If there were no differences we would get bored and create differences.
We would have no right hands.
Humanity would destroy the world.
Love would die.
Pick any of the above.
Like I said: They are and should be different in order to prevent the extinction of homo sapiens.
If humans will not have any difference, they will either create differences or die out. Without any difference humans are not able to win any fight.
In the following animation the different one (with the red girdle) is an android machine:
You seem to have a very defeatist attitude toward clear definitions; âIf I clearly define my words and concepts, I will lose my argument!â
So there is no purpose to life with which to answer to a âShouldâ. There is no âgoodâ.
So your answer is âNoâ. (I guess I should have made this into a poll).
I tend to think that there are universal advantages in some things and thus there are âuniversal shouldsâ to be considered, objective good. Granted they are abstract, not easily identified, easily debatable by shallow thinkers, but they are none the less objective.
Well again, you are addressing what IS. I am asking of what âSHOULD beâ, as if you could change what is into a âbetter designâ (because people are already doing that. We might as well see if there is any good to it).
But you still are not telling me WHY? And you are implying that as long as there are differences in male and female, humans will be able to beat up the androids ⌠???
Geeezz ⌠I should have guessed beforehand. As usual, I get the most direct answers from the women (whether right or wrong).
Your (1) could be handled easy enough through the same entertainment ploys used today for everything else. I have no idea what you meant by (2). And (3) seems to be happening anyway, so what does it have to do with ensuring that male and female are distinct? And then (4) is certainly true between men and women (already being proven throughout the West) but the intent has been to cause love of government, that extreme and total dedication to the higher father formerly known in the priesthood in all religions. When people have nothing more obvious to love in their lives, they will reach out to esoteric, vague concepts such as "the Governance of the World (Global Unity), Gia, the Hive Queen, or whatever. That has also already been proven and is very largely the designed intent of gender neutralization and dissatisfaction.
So I get the general impression that your answer is âYes, else humanity will screw things up even worse.â But Iâm not getting any reasoning as to exactly WHY such would occur other than âboredomâ. Couldnât we just get rid of boredom instead?
I answered your question, and it was a very direct answer. And I don#t think that my answer was in too much German English.
You asked:
I answered:
That was a very direct answer. And I thought that I donât have to explain to you what âto pevent the extinction of homo sapiensâ means.
But you do. The âyesâ or ânoâ was the easy part. It is the exact âWHY?â that matters.
Exactly how does male and female distinction help prevent extinction considering todayâs and the futureâs technology?
Yes, and this was my answer to the âeasyâ part:
Yes, and this was my answer to the âexact WHYâ part:
That IS exact, if one knows what âto prevent the extinction of homo sapiensâ means.