Anonymous #2 10w

Yes yes, I absolutely agree and understand! I’m not trying to disregard that in any way! All I’m saying is that a lot of men often say “a woman’s sole purpose is to reproduce” and get upset when women choose not to, so I’m just arguing that if anything, it’s MORE of a man’s “purpose” than a woman’s in a strictly biological way. (I don’t actually think it should be anyone’s “sole purpose” to reproduce, but just as a response to men who feel that way about women)

10

Anonymous #1 10w

Yaaa as a man I lowkey agree

5

Anonymous #1 10w

So the human species would survive on its own if there were only biological females?

-2

Anonymous OP 10w

Oh okay then ya that’s fair enough!

1

Anonymous #5 10w

if i could post that clip of Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park right here then i absolutely would. “Life… finds a way.”

1

Anonymous #7 10w

I’ll take that as a no

0

Anonymous #5 10w

honestly the human species could survive on it's own if there were 95% less men (provided they were fertile and distributed properly throughout the population). notice how i didn't say "unnecessary" i said "less important" like you created a situation that i wasn't talking abt lol

0

Anonymous #1 10w

“distributed properly throughout the population” I bet you’d love to make men reproduction slaves. That isn’t natural in any capacity.

1

Anonymous #5 10w

who ever said anything about it being natural? did you forget the point i originally made? i never said this is my ideal situation lmfaoo

0

Anonymous #1 10w

If they are less important then you shouldn’t need them, all to say they are equally as important as without there can be no continuation of the species

0

Anonymous #5 10w

there are species on earth with no males, but none with no females. i'm not saying we should get rid of all men, but if 99% of women died, the species would never recover. if 99% of men died, that would be a horrible tragedy & the species would be worse off but it wouldn't be a population ending event. males as a biological phenomenon are an adaptive offshoot, and are great for genetic diversity, but ultimately not necessary for life the way females are

1

Anonymous #5 10w

like female life preceded the evolution of males by billions of years

1

Anonymous #5 10w

and notice that you're the one who made this about our species, i wasn't talking about humans specifically, i was talking about all life

1

Anonymous #1 10w

Youre not being logical still. You can’t say “males are less important than females” and include species where that entire dichotomy is absent. That’s dishonest, and very intentional. Where there is male and in female they are equally important, most particularly in mammals. This post has been exclusively about humans, so am I the one off topic?

0

Anonymous #5 10w

the dichotomy is absent because males don't exist in that species, but we would still consider the species female based on the size gametes they produce. eggs (large gametes) are necessary for every type of reproduction, while small gametes (sperm) are only necessary in sexually reproducing species. life existed before males, but there were always females

1

Anonymous #5 10w

in what way is it dishonest to say that females are more important than males when some species don't even have males, but all species have females? i'm not calling them females arbitrarily, see my above definition

1

Anonymous #5 10w

also like the post this is in response to literally mentions other species lol

1

Anonymous #1 10w

All of what you said really has no bearing on importance, and is again an expansion away from the actual topic of the post which was humans, where it still stands they are equally important. You really trying to push this aren’t you?

0

Anonymous #5 10w

my original claim was men are less biologically important than women. i would argue that zinc is less biologically important than water, but we still need zinc to live and be healthy. we just need far far far less of it. similar to how men are for human population

1

Anonymous #1 10w

way to diminish human beings to objects ig. “far far less” doesn’t make it less important either. If you need zinc to live and you need water live then they are important. Not sure where this notion of “it takes less so less important” is coming from, but that’s just generally not true lol.

0

Anonymous #5 10w

so the way you see it, important vs not important is a binary system, anything important is equally important, anything that is less important is automatically unnecessary?

1