"In the most basic and accurate definition, a man is an adult human male, a human being whose body is organised to facilitate male sexual development and capable of producing the smaller gametes, an individual with XY chromosomes."
Not true, I know of men who have 46XX chromosomes, and they were born that way. They can also be XXY and XXYY and XXXY and XYY and XY/XXY mosaics. They have the physical development to make small gametes, well they would if their testes worked. Typically, XYY's testes do work.
I think this is a better definition:
"In the most basic and accurate definition, a man is an adult human male, a human being whose body is organised to facilitate male sexual development and capable of producing the smaller gametes, an individual with Y genes that say make a male."
I don't think that gender is inherently a "feeling", it's just a biological structure.
How you feel towards your own gender and identity is subjective, and, of course, largely influenced by society and patriarchal expectations of what a man and woman (especially woman) should be.
Also, I have nothing against trans people, trans men OR trans women, they are free to live authentically and free from discrimination from hateful conservatives. But these conversations are STILL important to have. A transgender woman has STILL been socialised as a man under patriarchy, and vice versa.
I say this all the time; personality does NOT have a gender. It is simply a biological structure.
I feel nothing towards being a biological female. I appreciate my body, I think it's pretty. I also hate the way the world treats it. All my "feelings" towards my gender expression and identity come from society, not from what I am "inherently", being female. My personality has nothing to do with what the world thinks I "should" be.
Oppression IS sex-based, and being transgender would not erase that. Being transgender will NOT erase a biological male's power under patriarchy, and it also would NOT be the easy way out for a biological female. Multiple things can be true at once. Because you transitioning will NOT change the way society sees you. It'll only put an EXTRA target on your back - because it's devastating, but trans people are a VERY marginalised community.
This does not mean I agree with people who point the finger at trans women, instead of at MEN and the systems they created. Trans women (AND trans men, of course) are ALL very vulnerable to oppression and violence from men. The problem is always MEN, and MALE socialisation.
Can I ask what you mean by gender being a biological structure? I find that interesting and would love to hear more. I partially agree with you that how someone thinks about their sex (I don’t believe there is such a thing as a gender identity—I think it’s just sex) is often influenced by society and patriarchal expectations, and those influences can be positive or negative. I also agree that personality does not have a gender, and that feelings about your sex—or what you’d call gender—don’t change your sex. Even if I didn’t “feel” like a woman or felt disconnected from what patriarchy says womanhood is, it wouldn’t change my material reality. I would still be a woman, just one who is unhappy with being one. I also agree that men and women are socialised differently and that sex‑based oppression is real.
Where we might disagree is here: I also believe that trans‑identified people should be free to go about their lives. Even if I think transitioning can be maladaptive or unhealthy, I can’t control what adults do, and I don’t want to. But when I say “free to go about their lives,” I mean within reason. Trans‑identifying men (trans women) are free to identify however they want, but I don’t believe they should have additional protections based on an identity they’ve chosen to adopt. They should have the same rights as any other male, regardless of how that male identifies—and I think the same should apply to women. Practically, this means men and women should have the right to single‑sex spaces free from members of the opposite sex, regardless of identity.
On the point about vulnerability, I think we partly agree. The only thing I’d add is that the form of vulnerability trans‑identified people experience is something they can opt out of. I can’t opt out of being a woman. A Black woman can’t opt out of being Black, even if she hates feeling vulnerable or targeted. A trans‑identified person can simply stop identifying. Do I think it’s fair that trans‑identified men face sexism from other men? No. Like you said, patriarchy harms everyone. But the judgement trans‑identified men face is because they’re being sex‑nonconforming, not because people genuinely see them as women or “failed women.” And I don’t think trans‑identified men are more vulnerable or more targeted than women.
I also know that many people would call us hateful or transphobic for saying that trans women are male‑socialised or have male privilege, even though that’s not hateful—it’s just true. They’d also say that calling trans identity an opt‑in, or supporting single‑sex spaces, is hateful when it isn’t.
Honestly, I don't think changing your sex is an ACTUAL biological possibility, objectively, because of various factors such as chromosomes that won't change, but I think that if someone TRULY feels they are in the wrong skin, they have every right to change that and be respected for it. AND protected from harm and discrimination, which both trans men and trans women are vulnerable to. It's like how I disagree with most religions but would never discriminate a person based on their beliefs. You can disagree with something and still respect it.
I like how you mentioned in your essay that the moment a man behaves in a way deemed as "effeminate"/"womanlike" (such as a gay man) he is ALSO a target for misogynistic male violence. So, while I agree that transgender women still obtain patriarchal privilege from being biological males, they are STILL a vulnerable group to misogynistic male violence. That's my nuanced take. They need to be protected too.
When I say "biological structure", I mean anatomy, and how that differs between men and women. I agree that we should have our own spaces, and that gender/sex is inherently NOT a feeling, just the shape of your body and genitals. That simple. That's why I say that I believe gender identity is something subjective and personal, like religion, but not the objective truth.
Objectively, a woman is just an adult human with female anatomy, and a man is just an adult human with male anatomy. That's what I mean. Any other "feelings" around that are influenced by society, not by any objective truths on what it means to be a woman or a man. I believe you talked about this in your piece too.
While every transgender individual's reasons for transitioning are different (and quite frankly, nobody's business to judge), I do agree that they can often be heavily influenced by society and escapism. Wanting to be the other gender; thinking that the grass is greener on the other side. Especially for trans men, who hate everything the world makes womanhood. I don't blame them at all. When the reality is, being transgender is a long and complicated process that makes you MORE vulnerable than being cis.
NOT saying that every trans person is just dissociating though! That's why I say it's a personal thing; just because I don't personally understand or relate to wanting to change my gender and that I'll be happier if I do, doesn't mean that it's not a real thing for other people.
And you're completely right about the choice vs. non-choice on what to opt out of. We are women, biological females, and oppression is SEX-based. No amount of surgeries or hormones will change that. Trans men are STILL biological females, and will ALWAYS be treated as so by the patriarchy. Same goes for trans women in reverse. That's why I said that transitioning to male - as a female - will NEVER be the easy way out. You will STILL be vulnerable. More so by becoming a part of the VERY marginalised trans community. It's like how we can't change our race; you will always be black, I will always be half-white, and the world will always treat us as such. We can't change that with anything - not skin-bleaching, not fake-tanning, nothing. The world will always view us how it sees fit. You're right.
I'm not saying that trans women are more vulnerable targets to male violence than biological women, just that they are included in the statistics of misogynistic atrocities committed against us. Of course they're not more vulnerable that BIOLOGICAL women - oppression is sex-based and biological men are less vulnerable to violence from other men. Trans women will still have the advantage of being biological men and respected by other men to a certain degree for that. But not always. I agree that the main priority for protection against men's violence is BIOLOGICAL women and girls, as we are the MAIN targets under its threat, I'm only acknowledging the suffering of other vulnerable groups at the hands of men. (Cisgender men, like the greedy billionaires in power, ruling the world. How many of them are trans? Zero. It's the cisgender conservatives ruling the world.)
Yes, I do feel you! I also feel that there will always be a difference in transitioning to the opposite gender and being BORN as that gender. I agree with that. There NEEDS to be spaces for BIOLOGICAL women and girls ONLY, protected spaces. That shouldn't anger trans women. You are a biological male, no matter what. You will never understand the complete reality of being born in a female body.
But yes, I understand your points, I'm just offering my two cents!
I love your takes, as usual! You have a way with words.
Appreciate you replying so quickly and so eloquently! I’m about to head into work, so I’m leaving this here for now to say: it actually seems like we agree on a lot more, and I’ll expand on this properly later in the day🩷!
I think we actually agree on almost everything. The places where we differ are slight, and mostly about wording rather than substance.
I also see opting into a trans identity as similar to opting into a religion. A lot of what gender ideology promotes feels religious in nature—both in its beliefs and in how those beliefs are enforced. And just like with religion, I don’t think people should be treated poorly for choosing it. But I also don’t think religious people or institutions should have special protections that end up giving them a pass to discriminate. For example, I don’t think it’s fair for a Catholic school to refuse to hire or to fire a gay person and then claim religious protection, because that “protection” comes at the cost of someone else’s civil and human rights. Those protections—just like the ones often demanded for trans‑identified people—shouldn’t supersede the rights of others. I think you agree with this; we just use slightly different language when we talk about “rights” and “protections.” Trans people having protections doesn’t mean they get access to women’s spaces—and from what I understand, you support women having their own spaces too.
The other small difference is this: while I agree that most men in power who commit violence or exploitation aren’t trans‑identifying, I don’t see trans‑identifying men as fundamentally different from non‑trans‑identifying men. Just like I wouldn’t see a Christian man as fundamentally different from an atheist man. They’re still male. So for me, the defining issue isn’t how these men identify—it’s that they’re men. The problem is that the majority of men, trans or not, participate in and benefit from patriarchy, and many behave in ways that harm women.
I know I’m jumping around a bit, but I also agree with you that the reasons people identify as trans vary. And I do sympathise with women who identify as trans because they hate what patriarchy has imposed on them. But I’m not sure the “cure” for that self‑hatred is transitioning. I think therapy might help, and more importantly, we as a society should make it possible for women to exist and present however they want without being punished for it. Women shouldn’t be made to feel ashamed, “masculine,” or “othered,” or pushed into thinking that the only way to escape patriarchal expectations is to transition rather than simply be sex‑nonconforming. Because let’s be honest: no one is truly sex‑conforming, and that’s part of what makes the world interesting!
I have written on this exact subject! The debate over 'what a woman' is contains the reality of gender based oppression itself. It is worth noting that during the entire course of this controversy, nobody was particularly flummoxed by the implications of asking 'what' a woman is rather than 'WHO women are.'
But that is, in and of itself, a clear and accurate demonstration of the way that women are defined within society, especially when the question is asking for women to be defined as their own class, without the importance and significance of their relationships to men configuring into the identity structure.
From what I know of Roman society and law the husband had no legal power over his wife, the power remained with her father, the pater familias, this mean that married women had a higher degree of leeway. Also later on to boost fertility rates they implement jus trium liberorum which gave women after birthing 3 children full legal personhood, right to inherit, and emancipated them from their fathers.
I think you're ignoring a big part of biology and power. All power ultimately stems from violent force, if I can kill you, you must obey my will or perish. This is a universal law not created by people, but a result of laws of physics. Men's greater physical strength and higher propensity for violence means that they're the ones with violent force and therefore power in comparison to women.
Violence also shapes inter-male relations, this is why strength is still an important aspect. Obviously the state's monopoly on violence tempers this and it wanes as you grow older and become legally liable, but it violence and strength still underpins are lot of social interactions. A common example will be road rage in traffic.
From what I know, granted I'm not a woman, violence underpins male female interactions too, it's just that women have no real ability to counter men.
Your comment might not be popular but I more or less agree with you. Everything's down to women being more physically vulnerable on the whole than men. That's the reason for patriarchy, that's the reason for sexism.
I mean yeah, you could ask WHY men used their strength to oppress women, but ultimately that is pretty simple too: to control reproduction. Like, patriarchy actually isn't at all complicated. The fact that controlling reproduction morphed to domestic servitude from random rape isn't complicated either.
I find the physical strength argument to be, ironically, weak. It doesn't hold up under scrutiny and becomes ahistorical pretty fast. If we were ruled by the most violent men, it would make sense, but we are not. We are ruled by, generally, effete and weak men who cannot go up a flight of stairs without getting winded. Not to mention that men have been and continue to be victims of violent women. It's mistaking capacity for ability.
And you can see this not just in human beings but in animals across the animal kingdom. The strongest animal doesn't actually rule.
If you look historically the nobility ruled because it had a monopoly on violence in comparison to peasantry, peasant revolts failed even though they outnumbered nobility several times, only when technological development democratised violence did we get modern democracies and old systems were overthrown.
Look at international relations, violence is still the main ruler, US and Russia do as they please. Look at current US politics, ICE usage of violence is how Trump is enacting his will.
The fact that the police force exists and state has mostly a monopoly on violence, doesn't change the fact that it is still the ultimate source of power.
If this isn't the case then the what is the explanation for patriarchy, a massive skill issue on part of women?
But the nobility themselves were not strong. They ruled through accumulation of wealth and promises of peace. We are not ruled by the strongest, we are ruled by those who can promise the aforementioned. And when those promises are broken, we can see violent backlash on the part of both men and women. ICE has been run out of almost every place it has sought violence by men and women.
The only reason other nations don't step in is not because they can't. Again, you're mistaking capacity for ability. Patriarchy did not come to be due to men being stronger than women but because of women's biological ability to reproduce.
Nobility had violent force, they had the training and the gear. The nobility isn't only the king, it is the whole system from the lowest rank to the highest rank.
You seem to think that physical strength is the only thing that confers violent power.
How does women's ability to reproduce prevent them from having political power to stop their oppression?
No, your understanding of power is very limited. The most effective nobles and kingdoms were the ones who could guarantee peace and prosperity, not the ones with the most violent force. The Romans fell because they could no longer promise peace and prosperity, the French monarchy fell for the same reasons. It’s not about the biggest army or violent force.
The creation of patriarchy was predicated on the concept of private property and lineage. Women, being the only humans able to make more humans, were relegated to private property of a man whether that man is the father or husband. (It’s actually way more complex than but I’m not going to write a book in a comment section).
But men came to establish male dominance through force. Unofficial Patriarchy was born long before modern systems of property and lineage. How did men relegate women to private property? Did women just go along with it? No, men have been beating women, raping, and killing them long before private property was established, and the nobility originally got their power through force, THEN brokered peace. "Empire of Cotton" talks about this in terms of Western colonization and the cotton industry. Admitting this doesn't mean strength must mean men should be naturally dominant. There are cultures where men choose NOT to use their strength to establish a patriarchy. But the patriarchy could not exist without men's greater physical power, and the amount of men who experience violence from women pales in comparison to the violence men perpetrated on men and women alike - both in numbers and in the level of the violence itself
I understand power perfectly fine. What did Romans fall too? They fell to external violence as they couldn't keep it at bay. The purpose of Roman prosperity was to buy violent power. French monarchy fell because violence became cheap. Numerous other monarchies before French one had the same issues yet none were replaced by democracy.
And why did women allow themselves to be relegated to property like that?
The violence thing is also why men don't care about TIFs, even if they invade male spaces, they can't really threaten you. More often than not TIFs will avoid male spaces as a good chunk transitions to escape misogyny, and they're probably already scared of men to an extent.
"In the most basic and accurate definition, a man is an adult human male, a human being whose body is organised to facilitate male sexual development and capable of producing the smaller gametes, an individual with XY chromosomes."
Not true, I know of men who have 46XX chromosomes, and they were born that way. They can also be XXY and XXYY and XXXY and XYY and XY/XXY mosaics. They have the physical development to make small gametes, well they would if their testes worked. Typically, XYY's testes do work.
I think this is a better definition:
"In the most basic and accurate definition, a man is an adult human male, a human being whose body is organised to facilitate male sexual development and capable of producing the smaller gametes, an individual with Y genes that say make a male."
DSDs and chromosomal variations are pretty rare. Most men have XY chromosomes, hence why I don’t feel the need to make that distinction/exception.
I don't think that gender is inherently a "feeling", it's just a biological structure.
How you feel towards your own gender and identity is subjective, and, of course, largely influenced by society and patriarchal expectations of what a man and woman (especially woman) should be.
Also, I have nothing against trans people, trans men OR trans women, they are free to live authentically and free from discrimination from hateful conservatives. But these conversations are STILL important to have. A transgender woman has STILL been socialised as a man under patriarchy, and vice versa.
I say this all the time; personality does NOT have a gender. It is simply a biological structure.
I feel nothing towards being a biological female. I appreciate my body, I think it's pretty. I also hate the way the world treats it. All my "feelings" towards my gender expression and identity come from society, not from what I am "inherently", being female. My personality has nothing to do with what the world thinks I "should" be.
Oppression IS sex-based, and being transgender would not erase that. Being transgender will NOT erase a biological male's power under patriarchy, and it also would NOT be the easy way out for a biological female. Multiple things can be true at once. Because you transitioning will NOT change the way society sees you. It'll only put an EXTRA target on your back - because it's devastating, but trans people are a VERY marginalised community.
This does not mean I agree with people who point the finger at trans women, instead of at MEN and the systems they created. Trans women (AND trans men, of course) are ALL very vulnerable to oppression and violence from men. The problem is always MEN, and MALE socialisation.
PATRIARCHY.
Thank you for your comment, Zia🩷!
Can I ask what you mean by gender being a biological structure? I find that interesting and would love to hear more. I partially agree with you that how someone thinks about their sex (I don’t believe there is such a thing as a gender identity—I think it’s just sex) is often influenced by society and patriarchal expectations, and those influences can be positive or negative. I also agree that personality does not have a gender, and that feelings about your sex—or what you’d call gender—don’t change your sex. Even if I didn’t “feel” like a woman or felt disconnected from what patriarchy says womanhood is, it wouldn’t change my material reality. I would still be a woman, just one who is unhappy with being one. I also agree that men and women are socialised differently and that sex‑based oppression is real.
Where we might disagree is here: I also believe that trans‑identified people should be free to go about their lives. Even if I think transitioning can be maladaptive or unhealthy, I can’t control what adults do, and I don’t want to. But when I say “free to go about their lives,” I mean within reason. Trans‑identifying men (trans women) are free to identify however they want, but I don’t believe they should have additional protections based on an identity they’ve chosen to adopt. They should have the same rights as any other male, regardless of how that male identifies—and I think the same should apply to women. Practically, this means men and women should have the right to single‑sex spaces free from members of the opposite sex, regardless of identity.
On the point about vulnerability, I think we partly agree. The only thing I’d add is that the form of vulnerability trans‑identified people experience is something they can opt out of. I can’t opt out of being a woman. A Black woman can’t opt out of being Black, even if she hates feeling vulnerable or targeted. A trans‑identified person can simply stop identifying. Do I think it’s fair that trans‑identified men face sexism from other men? No. Like you said, patriarchy harms everyone. But the judgement trans‑identified men face is because they’re being sex‑nonconforming, not because people genuinely see them as women or “failed women.” And I don’t think trans‑identified men are more vulnerable or more targeted than women.
I also know that many people would call us hateful or transphobic for saying that trans women are male‑socialised or have male privilege, even though that’s not hateful—it’s just true. They’d also say that calling trans identity an opt‑in, or supporting single‑sex spaces, is hateful when it isn’t.
You feel me?
Honestly, I don't think changing your sex is an ACTUAL biological possibility, objectively, because of various factors such as chromosomes that won't change, but I think that if someone TRULY feels they are in the wrong skin, they have every right to change that and be respected for it. AND protected from harm and discrimination, which both trans men and trans women are vulnerable to. It's like how I disagree with most religions but would never discriminate a person based on their beliefs. You can disagree with something and still respect it.
I like how you mentioned in your essay that the moment a man behaves in a way deemed as "effeminate"/"womanlike" (such as a gay man) he is ALSO a target for misogynistic male violence. So, while I agree that transgender women still obtain patriarchal privilege from being biological males, they are STILL a vulnerable group to misogynistic male violence. That's my nuanced take. They need to be protected too.
When I say "biological structure", I mean anatomy, and how that differs between men and women. I agree that we should have our own spaces, and that gender/sex is inherently NOT a feeling, just the shape of your body and genitals. That simple. That's why I say that I believe gender identity is something subjective and personal, like religion, but not the objective truth.
Objectively, a woman is just an adult human with female anatomy, and a man is just an adult human with male anatomy. That's what I mean. Any other "feelings" around that are influenced by society, not by any objective truths on what it means to be a woman or a man. I believe you talked about this in your piece too.
While every transgender individual's reasons for transitioning are different (and quite frankly, nobody's business to judge), I do agree that they can often be heavily influenced by society and escapism. Wanting to be the other gender; thinking that the grass is greener on the other side. Especially for trans men, who hate everything the world makes womanhood. I don't blame them at all. When the reality is, being transgender is a long and complicated process that makes you MORE vulnerable than being cis.
NOT saying that every trans person is just dissociating though! That's why I say it's a personal thing; just because I don't personally understand or relate to wanting to change my gender and that I'll be happier if I do, doesn't mean that it's not a real thing for other people.
And you're completely right about the choice vs. non-choice on what to opt out of. We are women, biological females, and oppression is SEX-based. No amount of surgeries or hormones will change that. Trans men are STILL biological females, and will ALWAYS be treated as so by the patriarchy. Same goes for trans women in reverse. That's why I said that transitioning to male - as a female - will NEVER be the easy way out. You will STILL be vulnerable. More so by becoming a part of the VERY marginalised trans community. It's like how we can't change our race; you will always be black, I will always be half-white, and the world will always treat us as such. We can't change that with anything - not skin-bleaching, not fake-tanning, nothing. The world will always view us how it sees fit. You're right.
I'm not saying that trans women are more vulnerable targets to male violence than biological women, just that they are included in the statistics of misogynistic atrocities committed against us. Of course they're not more vulnerable that BIOLOGICAL women - oppression is sex-based and biological men are less vulnerable to violence from other men. Trans women will still have the advantage of being biological men and respected by other men to a certain degree for that. But not always. I agree that the main priority for protection against men's violence is BIOLOGICAL women and girls, as we are the MAIN targets under its threat, I'm only acknowledging the suffering of other vulnerable groups at the hands of men. (Cisgender men, like the greedy billionaires in power, ruling the world. How many of them are trans? Zero. It's the cisgender conservatives ruling the world.)
Yes, I do feel you! I also feel that there will always be a difference in transitioning to the opposite gender and being BORN as that gender. I agree with that. There NEEDS to be spaces for BIOLOGICAL women and girls ONLY, protected spaces. That shouldn't anger trans women. You are a biological male, no matter what. You will never understand the complete reality of being born in a female body.
But yes, I understand your points, I'm just offering my two cents!
I love your takes, as usual! You have a way with words.
Appreciate you replying so quickly and so eloquently! I’m about to head into work, so I’m leaving this here for now to say: it actually seems like we agree on a lot more, and I’ll expand on this properly later in the day🩷!
Got it, sis, I look forward to your thoughtful response! Have a good time at work!💖
Thanks again, diva, for this comment!
I think we actually agree on almost everything. The places where we differ are slight, and mostly about wording rather than substance.
I also see opting into a trans identity as similar to opting into a religion. A lot of what gender ideology promotes feels religious in nature—both in its beliefs and in how those beliefs are enforced. And just like with religion, I don’t think people should be treated poorly for choosing it. But I also don’t think religious people or institutions should have special protections that end up giving them a pass to discriminate. For example, I don’t think it’s fair for a Catholic school to refuse to hire or to fire a gay person and then claim religious protection, because that “protection” comes at the cost of someone else’s civil and human rights. Those protections—just like the ones often demanded for trans‑identified people—shouldn’t supersede the rights of others. I think you agree with this; we just use slightly different language when we talk about “rights” and “protections.” Trans people having protections doesn’t mean they get access to women’s spaces—and from what I understand, you support women having their own spaces too.
The other small difference is this: while I agree that most men in power who commit violence or exploitation aren’t trans‑identifying, I don’t see trans‑identifying men as fundamentally different from non‑trans‑identifying men. Just like I wouldn’t see a Christian man as fundamentally different from an atheist man. They’re still male. So for me, the defining issue isn’t how these men identify—it’s that they’re men. The problem is that the majority of men, trans or not, participate in and benefit from patriarchy, and many behave in ways that harm women.
I know I’m jumping around a bit, but I also agree with you that the reasons people identify as trans vary. And I do sympathise with women who identify as trans because they hate what patriarchy has imposed on them. But I’m not sure the “cure” for that self‑hatred is transitioning. I think therapy might help, and more importantly, we as a society should make it possible for women to exist and present however they want without being punished for it. Women shouldn’t be made to feel ashamed, “masculine,” or “othered,” or pushed into thinking that the only way to escape patriarchal expectations is to transition rather than simply be sex‑nonconforming. Because let’s be honest: no one is truly sex‑conforming, and that’s part of what makes the world interesting!
I have written on this exact subject! The debate over 'what a woman' is contains the reality of gender based oppression itself. It is worth noting that during the entire course of this controversy, nobody was particularly flummoxed by the implications of asking 'what' a woman is rather than 'WHO women are.'
But that is, in and of itself, a clear and accurate demonstration of the way that women are defined within society, especially when the question is asking for women to be defined as their own class, without the importance and significance of their relationships to men configuring into the identity structure.
From what I know of Roman society and law the husband had no legal power over his wife, the power remained with her father, the pater familias, this mean that married women had a higher degree of leeway. Also later on to boost fertility rates they implement jus trium liberorum which gave women after birthing 3 children full legal personhood, right to inherit, and emancipated them from their fathers.
I think you're ignoring a big part of biology and power. All power ultimately stems from violent force, if I can kill you, you must obey my will or perish. This is a universal law not created by people, but a result of laws of physics. Men's greater physical strength and higher propensity for violence means that they're the ones with violent force and therefore power in comparison to women.
Violence also shapes inter-male relations, this is why strength is still an important aspect. Obviously the state's monopoly on violence tempers this and it wanes as you grow older and become legally liable, but it violence and strength still underpins are lot of social interactions. A common example will be road rage in traffic.
From what I know, granted I'm not a woman, violence underpins male female interactions too, it's just that women have no real ability to counter men.
Your comment might not be popular but I more or less agree with you. Everything's down to women being more physically vulnerable on the whole than men. That's the reason for patriarchy, that's the reason for sexism.
It’s way more complicated than just “men strong” Anne.
I mean yeah, you could ask WHY men used their strength to oppress women, but ultimately that is pretty simple too: to control reproduction. Like, patriarchy actually isn't at all complicated. The fact that controlling reproduction morphed to domestic servitude from random rape isn't complicated either.
This is very reductive.
OK. Your condescension has convinced me.
I’m not trying to be condescending.
I find the physical strength argument to be, ironically, weak. It doesn't hold up under scrutiny and becomes ahistorical pretty fast. If we were ruled by the most violent men, it would make sense, but we are not. We are ruled by, generally, effete and weak men who cannot go up a flight of stairs without getting winded. Not to mention that men have been and continue to be victims of violent women. It's mistaking capacity for ability.
And you can see this not just in human beings but in animals across the animal kingdom. The strongest animal doesn't actually rule.
If you look historically the nobility ruled because it had a monopoly on violence in comparison to peasantry, peasant revolts failed even though they outnumbered nobility several times, only when technological development democratised violence did we get modern democracies and old systems were overthrown.
Look at international relations, violence is still the main ruler, US and Russia do as they please. Look at current US politics, ICE usage of violence is how Trump is enacting his will.
The fact that the police force exists and state has mostly a monopoly on violence, doesn't change the fact that it is still the ultimate source of power.
If this isn't the case then the what is the explanation for patriarchy, a massive skill issue on part of women?
But the nobility themselves were not strong. They ruled through accumulation of wealth and promises of peace. We are not ruled by the strongest, we are ruled by those who can promise the aforementioned. And when those promises are broken, we can see violent backlash on the part of both men and women. ICE has been run out of almost every place it has sought violence by men and women.
The only reason other nations don't step in is not because they can't. Again, you're mistaking capacity for ability. Patriarchy did not come to be due to men being stronger than women but because of women's biological ability to reproduce.
Nobility had violent force, they had the training and the gear. The nobility isn't only the king, it is the whole system from the lowest rank to the highest rank.
You seem to think that physical strength is the only thing that confers violent power.
How does women's ability to reproduce prevent them from having political power to stop their oppression?
No, your understanding of power is very limited. The most effective nobles and kingdoms were the ones who could guarantee peace and prosperity, not the ones with the most violent force. The Romans fell because they could no longer promise peace and prosperity, the French monarchy fell for the same reasons. It’s not about the biggest army or violent force.
The creation of patriarchy was predicated on the concept of private property and lineage. Women, being the only humans able to make more humans, were relegated to private property of a man whether that man is the father or husband. (It’s actually way more complex than but I’m not going to write a book in a comment section).
But men came to establish male dominance through force. Unofficial Patriarchy was born long before modern systems of property and lineage. How did men relegate women to private property? Did women just go along with it? No, men have been beating women, raping, and killing them long before private property was established, and the nobility originally got their power through force, THEN brokered peace. "Empire of Cotton" talks about this in terms of Western colonization and the cotton industry. Admitting this doesn't mean strength must mean men should be naturally dominant. There are cultures where men choose NOT to use their strength to establish a patriarchy. But the patriarchy could not exist without men's greater physical power, and the amount of men who experience violence from women pales in comparison to the violence men perpetrated on men and women alike - both in numbers and in the level of the violence itself
I understand power perfectly fine. What did Romans fall too? They fell to external violence as they couldn't keep it at bay. The purpose of Roman prosperity was to buy violent power. French monarchy fell because violence became cheap. Numerous other monarchies before French one had the same issues yet none were replaced by democracy.
And why did women allow themselves to be relegated to property like that?
The violence thing is also why men don't care about TIFs, even if they invade male spaces, they can't really threaten you. More often than not TIFs will avoid male spaces as a good chunk transitions to escape misogyny, and they're probably already scared of men to an extent.
This is true. Even the most ardent pro transmission liberal man instinctively knows that "trans men" aren't a threat.