And if they're nature then why would removing them cause anything to change?

I'm not even arguing against you generally here but that was a stupid thing to say

speaking mad facts ^

ah so a bunch of nonsense and continuum fallacy

got it

also just because something is socially constructed doesnt imply invalidity

so no argument

@A Russian Bad Actor since when did you have to define my words

by nature i mean none imposing costs on others for your own interest

so you admit it's a social construct

yes so what>

it is

also I'm not a gender abolitionist just because it's a social construct dummy

not an argument

so youre against social constructs as a rule?

thats fucking retarded

no

yes

just when they're retarded and unnecessary

ie gender

so you admit that you pick and choose?

epic

yes cuz some social constructs are good

oh so its based on your subjective values lmao

epic

there are other methods of solving this problem but none that I agree with so

yes

i personally think that we should base constructs on their validity not on what i feel personally would be nice but thats just me and science

what lol

@adolphus the sorrowful I think you should kill yourself Dilbert

^tbh
took him 20 mins to say ''what''

just had to think on what you said

like what do you mean

gender abolitionism is a movement in science

It's not like my person ideas

nah you were typing for ages
so is/was lysenkoism
your point

no i was referring to the idea that it was retarded or unnecessary
those are your personal opinions
those say nothing about the validity of gender

Wouldn't it being retarded or unnecessary mean it's not valid

As opposed to being

Not those things

no