What biological differences are you referring to, genitals and hormones? And you'd say those things explain most of the differences between sexes? I'd say definitely not. That would be mostly social and political. That seems about as biological as a black person having darker skin than a white person. In other words, it's not enough to really explain or help solve issues between races/sexes.
Advocating for biological essentialism isn't "nuanced" on any level in any context. That's the point of the analogies, but you'd say biological essentialism is fine when it comes to males? The difference is I don't think biological essentialism is ever okay. Whether you care about the morality is one thing, but it will also never reach the true answer of the source of sex/gender problems (or any problems) if biology is as deep as you go.
There's already a narrative that racial issues involve biological differences. The analogy is rather supposed to invite the idea that maybe biology isn't a satisfying justification for prejudice against males or any group. It has that cognitive dissonance if someone thinks it's okay to judge someone for being male. Race and sex are both some of the things we're born with and have no choice with. It has to be deeper than that.
-20
u/[deleted] Apr 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment