[marcusverus]

> The idea that there are straightforward “female” and “male” traits should seem quite shaky to anyone who is even a little bit into humanities.

Straightforward male and female traits/roles pervade the animal kingdom, including the other great apes.

Honestly, even entertaining this idea is female-coded. In a male space, the denial of so obvious a reality would be dismissed out of hand as obviously retarded.

[nis0s]

Are you saying other male animals don’t perform the tasks usually attributed to human females? Look up the behavior of male penguins in the Arctics. There are many such examples, have Chat look them up for you.

[marcusverus]

> Are you saying other male animals don’t perform the tasks usually attributed to human females?

No. My claim is that male and female traits/roles generally differ. That can't be read as a claim that there is no overlap between their roles/tasks.

[rufus_foreman]

I looked it up. Male penguins are physically different from female penguins, they have different behavior and different vocalization methods.

Are those social constructs?

[bigyabai]

Would it be feminine of me to ask you for a citation?

[marcusverus]

Only if you did so in a passive-aggressive way ;)

From the relevant Wikis:

Chimps:

At the core of social structures are males, which patrol the territory, protect group members, and search for food. Males remain in their natal communities, while females generally emigrate at adolescence. Males in a community are more likely to be related to one another than females are to each other. Among males, there is generally a dominance hierarchy, and males are dominant over females.

Orangutans:

One to several resident female home ranges are encompassed within the home range of a resident male, who is their main mating partner.[50][51] Interactions between adult females range from friendly to avoidance to antagonistic.[52] Flanged males are often hostile to both other flanged males and unflanged males, while unflanged males are more peaceful towards each other.[53]

Orangutans disperse and establish their home ranges by age 11. Females tend to live near their birth range, while males disperse farther but may still visit their birth range within their larger home range.[51][54] They enter a transient phase, which lasts until a male can challenge and displace a dominant, resident male from his home range.

Gorillas:

Gorillas live in groups called troops. Troops tend to be made of one adult male or silverback, with a harem of multiple adult females and their offspring.[58][59][60] However, multiple-male troops also exist.[59] A silverback is typically more than 12 years of age, and is named for the distinctive patch of silver hair on his back, which comes with maturity. Silverbacks have large canine teeth that also come with maturity. Both males and females tend to emigrate from their natal groups. For mountain gorillas, females disperse from their natal troops more than males.[58][61] Mountain gorillas and western lowland gorillas also commonly transfer to second new groups.[58]

Mature males also tend to leave their groups and establish their own troops by attracting emigrating females. However, male mountain gorillas sometimes stay in their natal troops and become subordinate to the silverback.

[judahmeek]

> male and female traits/roles pervade the animal kingdom

Your citations don't really support your claim well, since the sections you quoted don't mention traits or roles much at all.

---

Also, why mention Orangutans and Gorillas, but leave out Bonobos?

According to https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/natured-nurture/2022..., "Evolutionarily, humans are equally related to patriarchal chimpanzees and matriarchal bonobos".

I almost thought to argue that this means that humanity could basically pick its traits, except... the traits mentioned for two species seem fairly gendered themselves: "Chimpanzees are male-dominated, competitive, territorial, and sometimes violent. Bonobos are female-dominated, peaceful, and highly sexual."

This reminds me of the ""Nordic gender equality paradox", where "in Sweden and Norway, gender strongly influences job choice despite high levels of gender equality".

Ultimately, I think the argument that everyone should be having is not whether gendered traits exist, but whether this fact is something that should be enforced or resisted.

I personally think it should be resisted as resisting our basic impulses is generally considered more enlightened or noble and the world already has enough idiots who will try to put others in a box and claim some sort of evolutionary justification.

[marcusverus]

> Your citations don't really support your claim well, since the sections you quoted don't mention traits or roles much at all.

The sections do mention roles very clearly. If you're not capable of making these basic connections, it's no wonder that you're confused.

For chimps:

> At the core of social structures are males, which patrol the territory, protect group members, and search for food

Male roles: Patroller of territory, protector of group members.

For Orangutans:

> One to several resident female home ranges are encompassed within the home range of a resident male, who is their main mating partner.

Female roles: harem member. Male Roles: Alpha, Harem haver

For Gorillas:

> Troops tend to be made of one adult male or silverback, with a harem of multiple adult females and their offspring.

Female roles: harem member. Male Roles: Alpha, Harem haver

If roles weren't based on sex, a female Chimp would be just as likely to patrol territory, and a female gorilla would be just as likely to be an alpha with her own harem. The fact that these roles are only filled by males indicates that they are sex-based roles.

> Evolutionarily, humans are equally related to patriarchal chimpanzees and matriarchal bonobos

You've lost the plot. For bonobos to be matriarchal implies male and female traits/roles, which obviously supports my argument.

> I personally think it should be resisted as resisting our basic impulses is generally considered more enlightened or noble and the world already has enough idiots who will try to put others in a box and claim some sort of evolutionary justification.

Telling the truth is a good thing, actually. Encouraging people to understand their nature is good. Lying to people about their nature is bad. Encouraging people to misunderstand their nature, which will inevitably lead to them making life decisions based on lies, is bad. Borderline evil.

[judahmeek]

I don't think that resisting our baser impulses is the same thing as lying.

And I don't think the fact that we have baser impulses is justification enough to tell people that they should live a certain way.