You seem on poor terms with the muse of language. I take it that you mean "usually" when you say always. Well, I know you do because we argued round this circle before. Debating with you is difficult because you lack precision in your language and so your points come across as very confused.

Women always invest more in offspring.

Most kids get raised as part of a family. that seems very much like pooling resources to me.

I've stated that by the very nature of sexual reproduction the males job is to spread genes, the females to produce offspring.

And producing offspring isn't spreading genes? The purpose of sexual reproduction is to spread genes.

Don't even think about arguing this, as you explicitly stated that you agree with this in a previous post.

Nope.

You claimed I believed all this in spite of evidence to the contrary.

What evidence?

You have not produced any evidence to the contrary, but rather argued that your anecdotes are sufficient to disprove peer reviewed meta studies

what peer reviewed metastudies? You never gave any, you merely asserted they existed.

There is a fundamental difference between anecdotes and evidence. A scientific study with a large enough selection size is evidence, like my reference

Meh. Firstly, observation is the core of science. Secondly one only needs a single counterexample to disprove a claim along the lines of the ones you made.

You keep mentioning your reference, but you never say what's in it. The way citing normally works is something along the lines of:

there is an arument which says blah blah blah[cite].

Or

there is data[cite] which implies blah blah clah.

The way you don't cite something is: I'm right because [cite].

You can't provide a citation for your claim that there is evidence that supports the idea that human gender roles are exceptions from the norm because "noone[sic] has argued it with me"?

Nope, despite your claims that I'm a special kind of stupid, you're the one who appears to be unable to read. Try going back and reading what I wrote. You'd look an awful lot silly if you argued against real points rather than making up ones you prefer.

Anyway, what we can observe is the following:

Humans are largely, but not exclusively serially monagmous.

Humans usually, but not always couple up and raisd offspring as a pair, where both adults pool resources to raise children.

Sometimes this doesn't work and the mother is left to raise the children alone.

Sometimes (more rarely) that doesn't work and a father raises the children alone.

Sometimes, neither works and humans collectively pool resources to raise children.

That is what we can observe. What is your point?

the thing is you can't even decide if you're talking about eukariotes, animalia, craniates, vertibrates, mammals, or great apes. You keep swinging wildly between different ones cherry picking the stories that best fit what you already believe.

So how about you choose here and now which gender roles you consider the norm. You have to chose any one of the following, otherwise you're just cherry picking:

Homo
Hominini
Hominidae
Hominoidea
Primates
Placental mammals
Mammals
Amniotes
Stem land animals
Lobe-finned fish
Bony fish
Vertibrates
Craniates
Chordates
Deuterostomia
Animalia
Eukariotes
All life

So which is it? Which subgrouping are you going to chose to define "gender norms", and why do you think it is more valid than the supergroup or subgroup.

Until you define a grouping, then your claims of "gender norms" are more or less meaningless.

You need a Citation for the bolded claim.

There was no bolded claim. Would you care to restate?

In the case of tool use there is evidence that humans are an exception.

we're the best tool users, but there are others. Apes, crows, sea otters, egyptian vultures, to name a few.

When it comes to gender roles there is no such evidence. Your turn to provide a citation, as I've already provided a citation for my claim. And please no anecdotes, as you seem to erroneously equate anecdotes with evidence.

You can't just bleat "anecdote is not data" and make the data go away. As some point a bunch of observations is data. There are innumeral examples where the general trends don't hold, including our closest relatives.

If the general trends are not universal truths, then they're nothing more than useful starting points. You can't prove anything by saying they exist.

My claim is that your original argument that "There is a huge gap between what we know about sex and gender from science, and what people generally believe about sex and gender." is fundementally flawed. I can't provide a specific citation to that because noone else has argued it with you.

To be honest I'm not even sure which points you're trying to argue any more.

I still disagree that feminism is responsible for everything wrong we know about gender (this is trivial to disprove). I also disagree that the existence of sexual reproduction proves that men and women must have different brains.

If something is true for 99% percent of all species it is reasonable to think that it is also true for humans.

Not at all. If that was the case it would be reasonable to think that humans aren't tool users, humans don't build stuff etc etc.

If you're coming across a new species and have no other information it might be reasonable to start by weakly assuming the most likely things given what 99% of other species do.

However, insisting on sticking to that (what Hashead is doing) when there's evidence to the contrary and you know the assumptsions don't represent universal truth (as he initially claimed), would be a vewy silly thing to do indeed.

Humans are the most observed species ever, you don't generally need to take guesses by extrapolating from other species to fill in the gaps.

I love how you switch between generalities and specifics as if I won't notice. You were using your reasoning to infer things about the differences between men and women. At least you've finally admitted that you're claims are not universal. Now you should admit that therefore you cannot use those claims to prove things about humans.

To reuse your analogy, your claims are like you trying to prove that an American appeals English without bothering to check. Sure, he probably does, but you can't be 100% sure. So, your original claim that evolutionary biology disproves feminism is equally shaky.

As for you ragequitting, didn't you accuse me of cowardice for not skewering a question of yours? How is this any different?

Answer my questions in the post above, coward.

sure.

From the context it is very clear that by "always" i mean all societies showed these trends. You would only need to explicitly state that for an idiot of your caliber.

uh... you know, it's not cowardly to not answer a question which doesn't exist. Tell you what, if you actually pose a question rather than mandlessly blather about biology all while revealing your own ignorance, then I'll gladly answer it.

But you have to, you know, actualy pose a question first!

Wow. See I've tried not to insult you personally, even though you have constantly insulted me personally in your replies.

Well ,I didn't until you accused me of ad-hom. I figured I may as well earn tha accusation. Besides in that I'm insulting your awful arguments.

This stuff is evolution 101.

Oh god. The trouble with any 101 course is that it is necessarily a massive simplification of what's going on. If all you're relying on is evolution 101, you're going to be making all sorts of mistakes.

Look, it's simple. You claimed as a universal truth that males can breed more or less without limit. I've given you a number of counter examples where this is not true. I can give you more if you like. Counterexamples prove 100% that your claim is not, in fact a universal truth.

If it's not a nuiversal truth then the logic of "it's a universal truth so it impies this about humans" is flawed.

variation does not invalidate a trend.

But you weren't talking about a trend. You were referring to it as a universal truth and deducing form that how it must necessarily affect humans. If it's only a trend, the the most you can say about humans is that "in the absence of any other information it's more likely they fit the trend than not".

That is a vastly weaker argument than the one you were making. Let me remind you that you were dismissing all of feminism because of evoloutionary biology (o your 101 level understanding of it).

If the males purpose is not to spread genes, why do males exist? If that is not their purpose, why has this system where only half the population are capable of producing offspring evolved?

You think I'm claiming that the purpose of the male is to not spread genes? My gosh you are going up the wrong alley. The purpose of the male, in as much as purpose exists at all---which it doesn't, is on a very coarse level exactly the same as the female. That is, to spread genes.

The reason you're barking up the wrong tree is that you believe that this is a trivial first order effect where naturally the male needs t ohave as many offspring in a given generation as possible. Which is clearly not the case.

The species that survive continue to successfully propagate over many, many generations. There are many adaptations to this. Quite a few involve the males not behaving as you insist they must. Else, how would it have evolved?

You're confusing "evidence" and "data" with "anecdotes". They are not the same thing.

Ah, so evidence to the contrary of your claims, i.e. species which don't fit your narritive are just anecdotes? To say you are blinkered is a quite astonishing underststement. You are intent on ignoring/dismissing/discounting every bit of evidence that doesn't fit how you believe the world works.

Geese are real things.
Anglerfish are real things.
Praying mantises are real things.
Snails are real things.
Plants are real things.
Albatrosses are real things.
Bees are real.
Wasps are real.
Ants are real.
Termites are real.
Huge varieties of fish are real things.

If you igore all the scientific evidence which doesn't fit your theory, the your theory is nothing more than a flawed notion.

From the context it is very clear that by "always" i mean all societies showed these trends.

lolno. If you hadn't spouted ignorant crap about evolution and sexual reproduction I might have given you the benefit of the doubt. I mean you claimed that "evoloutionary biology" must mean that mens and womens brains are different "because of sexual selction". You actually managed to ignore possily the majority of species which reproduce sexually to come to that conclusion.

You clearly are ignorant about a great many things so it would be illogical narrte in correct meanings for your ramblings.

I love this:

we can in fact observe these differences as patterns that occur across all human societies.

followed by this:

Women always invest more in offspring.

This really takes the cake. You asserted "always". That means you are denying the existence of situations where the mother buggered off leaving the father to bring up the kids. You are denying the existence of plainly observable facts.

Even relative non contraversial points you manage to get wrong:

Males always take more risks.

Nope. Men on average take more risks. If what you said was true, then if you chose a man and woman at random from the population the male would ALWAYS (your choice of word) would take more risks than the female.

You really are a moron.

I wouldn't doubt that there are evolutionary biology studies that support it, and some that oppose it. The layman-level stuff I've seen has always looked like somebody making up a neat story to explain something. Humans are far better at making up neat stories to support what they already think than weeding through them.

Well indeed. I suspect there are some subtle differences of some sort, and that they must have evolved. But those glib reasons based on misunderstood versions of massively simplified takes on biology are not the reasons.

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.