[t-writescode]

It's definitely not a trick question.

I'm more than confident you don't mean to imply that a child gains benefit specifically because a biological man has an outie and a biological woman has an innie and because innie and outie go together and that that's the "love" that only a man and a woman can have together in that particular "arrangement" and that, again, a child benefits from that.

So, since a child's life isn't impacted by the specific configuration that a penis and vagina can happen to join in, what do you mean?

[Supply5411]

It sure seems like a trick question, because it seems like you want me to define man and woman in a way that you can say "ha gotcha." Instead, I'm leaving the definition of man and woman to you, and only requiring that you know there is a difference. "AB" doesn't refer to the genital configuration, but it is a required component of the arrangement. Whatever a man is to you, in addition to having a penis, that's "A". Whatever a woman is to you, in addition to having a vagina, that's "B". If you don't see how that's a unique arrangement, then I'm afraid I can't continue to explain it while also assuming your interactions are in good faith.

[t-writescode]

Alright, so it's not genitals, cool, cool and it's somehow "gender"-based that makes love across genders to be interesting.

Which philosophy of thought do you follow where gender would have an impact? Is this an argument about dominant / submissive? breadwinner / caretaker? Something else?

[Supply5411]

>Alright, so it's not genitals

I said genitals is "a required component of the arrangement." It's just not the whole thing.

[t-writescode]

Ah, sorry, I misread that part, then.

Why do genitals matter?

[Supply5411]

Because it is the only combination that produces life.

[t-writescode]

Sure; but what does the ability to produce life have to do with love?