The male is optimized for spreading genes, the female for producing offspring.

So Anglerfish don't exist? Geese don't exist? Seahorses don't exist? Snails don't exist? Albatrosses don't exist? Bees don't exist? None of those fit your cute little narritive. If you're going to make wild claims please don't make ones that fly so flagrantly in the face of facts.

Let's say you as a male have a beneficial mutation. If you are a a male you could spread that to an almost infinite number of offspring.

Unless you're one of the cases where you can't.

That doesn't work if the male is as choosy as a female,

Then why on earth do so many sepecies mate for life? Ah yes. Every case which doesn't fit your world view is an "edge case" so you can ignore it and pretent it doesn't exist.

In the vast majority of sexually reproducing mammals,

You're limiting yourself to mammals now? This is new. You earlier claimed that evoloutonary biology as a whole supported your absurd points. I guess you've finally accepted that plants don't have brains. That took you an astonishingly large number of posts to do that!

There is no reason, and no evidence, that humans are any different, in spite of your anecdotes from Essex.

Oh so apart from the cases where it's not the case and apart from the cases where humans don't exihibit the behaviour you want them to and apart from the cases where the closest relatives to humans don't exhibit those cases there's no evidence.

Well, yes, I agree. If you ignore all the evidence then there is no evidence. Convenient!

Out of interest are you also a young earth creationist?

Yeah, I don't know who that is.

Then hand in your nerd card at the door on the way out.

If you don't believe me, then fine, but next time someone is showing you statistics of how men make more than women, think about what I said.

So next time someone shows that I should think about how you believe that "gender is a social construct" is a core belief of feminism?

Sense! This makes none!

Ah-hom how? I think Inigo Montoya would like a word with you.

As for the rest, no, I simply don't believe you that it's a core belief. This is you just making shit up. That's no to say that many aspects of gender aren't purely social (pink for girls is a classic example).

But almost certainly more of gender is a social construct than you realise. AgAin the sad thing is your mindless taking against feminism hurts men because by pretending there are more differences than there really are ends up pushing many men into roles they're not happy with.

Ok, let's cook the delicious red herrings, put them on toast, east them and get back to it.

You claimed that sexual reproduction means that men and women's brains must be different. I pointed out that there are both dimorphic and hematopoietic sexually reproducing organisms with no brains at all. Do you now recant your position that sexual reproduction must involve mental differences?

Second you claimed that male reproductive success is uncapped. I pointed our many examples where that is not in fact the case. Do you now retract that point?

I'd like to point out at this juncture that you're the one that brought all these other organisms into the debate by claiming generalities about evolutionary biology and how those generalities must affect the brain.

Next (forgive improper quoting, I'm on my phone), why should I accept that bonobis are an edge case? There is an astonishing variety in the three domains of life, far, far more than most people expect. Secondly, bonobos also share some very important sexual features work us and not chimps, such as oxytocin receptors.

And finally if you think we are a species where males compete for females exclusively, then I invite you to wander the streets of Essex late on a Friday night.

Honestly, my conclusion is that you're almost as ignorant about human behavior as you are about evolutionary biology. What's interesting is you're using your cod evolution bad science arguments while accusing others if exactly the same.

Gender as a social construct

I think you're confusing post modernism with feminism. Or possibly some loopy old, far out whackjob branch of feminism. To re-use your analogy, that would be like defining Christians by the acts of the Heaven's Gate sect.

I hope the irony of you ( erroneously ) accusing me of an ad hominem argument,

m8, u need to lurn to reed.

Reverse ad-hom was you pre-emptively accusing me of making ad-hom attacks before I actually made any.

yet again

Well, it can't be "yet again" if it's the first time, now, can it?

Anyway, you seem actually not understand what ad-hom is. Me making observations about your likely motivations is not ad-hom. Me calling you a moron is ad-hom.

Male and female plants still have to act differently.

You know that most angiosperms are hemaphoraditic, right?

The fact that hemaphoriditic organisms exist and reproduce sexually indicates strongly that they do not in fact need to behave differently. And tell me, for plants whihc are not hemaphoriditic, how do they behave differently?

Look, females have a cap on their reproductive success, males do not.

Oh jeez. You seem to be presenting this as a "univeral truth" again. Go tell it to a sea-horse. Or a queen bee. Or an angler fish. Or a goose (they mate for life. did you know that?).

we expect sexes to behave differently because of this

By "we expect them to behave differently" you mean "I want to make a bunch of unwarranted assumptions about human sexuality based on cod-evolution and discounting the last 10,000 years of human society".

Males want more sex partners and are less choosy, because sex i cheaper for males. This imbalance is why sexual reproduction works Men compete for females, and females preference for good genes drives the species forward

How on earth does that explain the way that Bonobos (our closest relative) carry on?

I think you will find that feminism is surprisingly friendly to Islam, and how women are treated in these countries is not a major feminist issue, compared to say, violence and sexism in media. Feminism is concerned mainly with western culture.

OK, well, if you define feminism with your own private definition that no onw but you knows, then sure, you get to define it however you like and can tell everyone else they're wrong about it. On the other hand, words mean things and if you use private definitions known only to you then people will start to think you're very silly.

To make such statements shows an entertainingly high level of ignorance.

It's also entertaining that your biological-based explanations show an astounding level of ignorance about biology as well.

I strongly suspect that you hold these views because of blind adherence to ideology, rather than facts or logic.

That is an absurd definition.

It's a glib joke.

That's like saying "Christianity: the notion that there is one god".

That's quite a big part of it. There's whole passages in the bible about slaughering people who believe in other gods. It was quite a big thing back in the day, when Abrahamic religions got started. Possibly, that was THE defining thing about it in the beginning.

I reserve the right to criticize ideology based on the actions of it's followers regardless of what they offer as their own definition.

Well then would you actually get on and criticise? All you've done is whine all over the internet about the evils of feminism without actually saying why you feel they're evil.

You've also whined that it's bad science, and yet failed to provide a definition. I strongly suspect your definition of "feminism" is "things I hate on the internet".

Feminism has been spreading lies about sex and gender for decades.

Such as?

It has also been able to label all critics as misogynists, as clearly illustrated by your reaction.

That's a sort of reverse ad-hom attack. Interesting.

You do also seem to be one of those people who insists men and women are "just different", in some vague sort of hand-wavy evoloutionary-biology way that focusses on a small branch of lobe-finned fish while claiming to be a global truth. What this means is you're almost certainly drawing conclusions about people based on their genitalia rather than on what's in their head. This means you're almost certainly mistaken about many of the women and men that you know.

I have precisely the same problem with feminism as I have with creationism. Ideology posing as science and fact.

Feminism: the radical notion that women are people.

And you're ideologically opposed to that because it's posing as science and fact? U wot m8?

And thanks for the ad hominem. I always know I'm doing something right when people use it.

Or, it might just mean you're like that chap from the "lol i trol u" comic.

First you criticize me for using Steve Pinker as a reference.

Nope, I'm not criticising you for using him as a reference, I'm criticising you for breezily telling me he's written a few books by means of explanation. That's great, but I'm not going to spend 3 weeks reading to know what point you're trying to make.

So i tl;dr it for you, and now all of a sudden you're all "citation needed!"?

OK let me explain for you. The way you argue things is you first make a point. You then back up the point with arguments. The arguments and especially facts may then be supplemented by citations to make them more convinving.

You simply provided a citation (Steve Pinker) with no point and no argument/fact. How would I even use a citation like that?

In this case you came up with a fact (there ARE studies which support...) without providing any corroborating evidence.

We know for a fact that for sexual reproduction to work, males and females have to act differently.

I asked you to provide some facts. You are providing abstract (and very simplistic) reasoning. You are seriously ignorant of biology as well. So if "for sexual reproduction to work" "makes and females HAVE to act differently", then how on earth do you explain plants which are often but not exclusively hemaphoraditic and just kinda sit there and grow towards the light? No brain is required at all for sexual reproduction.

Seriously the evidence for that literally grows on trees.

So go on provide some evidence that evoloutionary biology means that men and women have different brains.

Go ahead. Name a major feminist cause that is not rooted in the notion that men and women are not different, that we are all blank slates.

Er how about that cause where are a bunch of people are trying to stop other people from mutilating young girls so they will be unable to get pleasure from sex when they are older?

Since you're convinced that men and women are different and that this somehow goes against all feminism, I'm going to say this: your brand of nutty antifeminism does as much damage to men as it does to women. Please stop.

No you couldn't argue it is ignorance unless they literally don't know.

I'm arguing that id they disbelieve science because of ideology then they are ignorant on what science fundementally is. That I think is more important than ignorance or knowledge of lists of facts.

Get it?

I understand the point you're making, I happen to disagree.

Second, ignoring what you know to and instead holding to ideological positions even though they are in opposition to what you know about science is not evidence of ignorance of science but rather evidence of a strong ideological association.

One could well argue that this is a deep degree of ignorance: it indicates on a very fundemental level that people do not understand that science is a matter of "belief". And fundementally if disbelieve it because of ideological reasons that shows such a fundemental misunderstanding of what it is that it is a better indication than any number of facts.

As for my definition of feminism, pretty much every single major feminist cause is rooted in the Tabula Rasa.

huh?

This isn't logically valid reasoning. There is debate, therefore differences are subtle? There is a debate about creationism too. I guess that proves the jurys still out on creationisms scientific validity then.

OK fine. There is very serious debate among the people who actually study this about what the nature of the differences are and if there are really any significant ones at all. There's a slew of papers, counter claims and so on and so forth. That means there aren't any obvious, glaring differences.

Hard scientific data, as in meta studies in evolutionary biology, neuroscience and linguistics, tells us there are significant and fundamental differences between the sexes. There is very little data supporting the opposing argument.

I've never seen any evoloutionary biology studies which support it, so [citation needed]. And define significant. If there was a significant difference, you could pick a man and a woman from the population at random and make some prediction about mental capacity (discounting any cultural factors) and be right some "reasonable" amount of time.

"reasonable" of course is the core of how significant it is. There might be a provable prediction you can get right 50.0001% of the time, which would mean there is a difference but it wouldn't be very significant.

If you are ACTUALLY interested in scientific literacy, then ask questions on which no major political faction has any stake.

I disagree: if you're willing to spew political talking points than pay attention to actual science, then that is a pretty good measure of being scientifically illiterate because that's more or less ignoring science because you don't like the conclusions it comes to.

Just because someone is politically and culturally invested in the idea that the earth is 6000 years old, doesn't make them any more scientifically literate than if they they were simply a nutcase.

I did reference Steve Pinker

Specifically, you told me he has written several books. Saying, I have a point but you're going to have to read several books to figure out what the point is never mind the arguments for and against is not really very solid. I mean sure, you might have a point and you might be right, but I'm not going to do several weeks of reading just to find out.

and that there are no inherent differences between men and womens brains is the corner stone of post modern feminism.

The differences between male and female brains seems to be a subject of intense debate, whichpretty much means that the differences are subtle. There is undeniably more variation across humans as a whole than between genders on average. Secondly where on earth do you get your definitions of feminism from?