XX
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (8)
sorted by:
I actually don't much like this counter argument to their nonsense. Walsh is wrong, Knowles is right. A man is more than xy chromosomes, and we intuitively know this when we critique people for not being 'manly'. It is responsibility to family and God, power used responsibly, self-control, self sufficiency, a degree of stoicism*...
There are many men not worthy of the title.
And so there is a degree of 'social construction, informed by biology and our natures' to it.
Don't be misled by the left into taking the complete opposite position of everything they say and do, sometimes the truth is somewhere else. But they want to create a dialectic where there are only two wrong competing answers, xy and xx vs their socially constructed model. The truth is that biologically it's xy and xx (ignoring genetic illness) that then results in natures that inform cultural norms, something socially constructed, but not their social construct.
This is the "only one word for love" semantics problem again. You are conflating the qualities of a man, manliness, with the physical status of being male. One is a set of traits that can be trained and learned and practiced, and the other is an inescapable, unalterable state of being.
It is exactly that kind of water muddying that got us into this mess in the first place. So KNOCK IT OFF!
You are mistaking morals with biology.
"Man" and "woman" are distinguished from "boy" and "girl" by sexual maturity - becoming suitable for procreation. For a girl, this is something that happens naturally as she develops physically. For a boy, he develops physically but must also live up to the role, because he cannot procreate unless he is chosen (either by women or by the male collective). The lives of men and women are not the same.