Feminists of TSR, if gender is a social construct then how can the gender wage gap ex

I think I just destroyed feminism...

Another good one is how can it be called 'gender reassignment surgery' when you're physically altering someone's body. Surely if it's just about the so-called 'gender' then no surgery is needed. Just think your way out of it.

Seems like you've not understood what a social construct is - pretty much everything is a social construct, language is a social construct but that doesn't mean words are meaningless. Similarly our ideas of what gender roles are - how a man should be, how a woman should be are social constructs; they've varied throughout history and from culture to culture, but they're still real and affect how we live in our culture at this time... That gender roles are dependent on society doesn't mean the pay gap can't exist.

You are absolutely correct. Some do wish to have gender reassignment surgery. Some don't. The law in the current state puts the oneness on having surgery if recognition is sought so it is a catch-22. But when you talk to real trans-gender people about how they feel, you find that for them, it is about the gender they feel rather than the genetics they are.

The self-serving fallacy pushed by feminism is that the 'social construct' handed down by nature and history makes them victims in need of retrospective compensation. That instead of being 'the one' it was a 'bad one', a burning injustice and all that.

This social construct is the one that historically worked and for that reason we had it and no other, happens with ants and bees too. It was neither good nor bad, there is nothing to put it against to compare. Elephants live in a matriarchal society, what is the big deal?

Of course there is a pay gap, this notion that we will ever live to see the day where there isn't one either way is egalitarianism gone mad. Another self-serving fallacy on the back of which feminists are making big gains that they wouldn't otherwise.

Many feminists are actually very anti-trans. On Mumsnet the 'Feminism' section of the forum is full of such content.

What utter drivel. Gender roles aren't handed down by nature, they've varied throughout time and cultures as has been required - it's in living memory a time when women were expected to leave the workforce when they got married. If you think that was a thing pre-industrial revolution when families had to toil to grow their own food etc you'd be sadly mistaken. Hierarchical structures in other species, particularly those where our common ancestry was eons ago mean sod all to human society - only fools like Jordan Peterson, the idiots idea of what an intellectual looks like, think otherwise.



Eh no, there's a small group of alt-right adjacent weapons (if you've got the stomach for it, read r/gendercritical for a laugh and see how quickly they descend into racist rhetoric as well) who borrow the language of feminism to justify their hatred but what they argue and practice is usually diametrically opposed to feminism, seeking to uphold and enforce conservative ideals of gender - their views are even quite misogynistic, working on benevolent sexism towards women (but only true born "Wombyn" though - because they don't understand etymology, and define women by their ability to reproduce, which is obviously what feminism is about). They're not a large group, they're empty vessels making a large sound.

Women are more disposed to certain gender roles such as taking care of children more than men? Women are able to produce breast milk -> suggests that women spend more time with babies than men. Everything in biology happens for a reason. Women also release more oxytocin during child birth than men when they see the baby. This helps make sure the woman is attached to said child, men release some so they don't run away and leave the woman starving to death which means the baby would die. This is what it was like during caveman times. Humans are animals and we have lived like that for most of our time on this planet.

This isn't to say a man is incapable of taking care of kids or that women can't work. It is a reason for why said gender role is assigned. Women are more disposed to it.

It's a massive jump from "women feed the baby" (which isn't even universally true, some women struggle to produce enough milk or express it and resort to formula to feed it) to "childcare is a woman's job". The idea that childcare is a woman's job is a result of when society was structured along the lines of women = homemakers, men = breadwinners, and as single earner households become generally unviable that line is going away, and being replaced by shared responsibility. As Dylan sung, the times they are a changing, and that's how social constructs work - they adapt to suit society as is.

At what point did I say it is the woman's job to feed a baby? I made the point that women are biologically more suited to take care of children as evidenced by breast milk production and the fact they release more oxytocin than men during birth. Hence there is a general trend for women to take care of kids... Men WERE the bread winners during early human times as evidenced by men having greater muscle mass, being taller and having denser bones.

If gender is truly a social construct why are humans of both sexes born with these features? Are you trying to tell me breast milk is useless and that it's just a coincidence women have it? If you ever took A level biology you would know every structure has a function. It would be pointless to have breast milk if it served no purpose, as you are then just wasting energy..

Bottom line:- Women are biologically more suited to take care of children therefore that is why the "gender role" of women taking care of kids has come. Not because all the men banded together one day just to keep women in the house...

Also to address your point about women struggling to produce breast milk therefore my argument is wrong, is illogical. Those women are a clear anomaly, and are just apart of the natural variation ocurring due to reproduction, these women would not have been able to raise children properly during those early times, and their children would die hence their poor genes wouldn't pass on. It's because we have modern technology that these women can raise children.

....

You are talking about sex not gender? No one says biological sex is a social construct.