• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

The most stupid arguments against gender equality.

Nesslig20

Active Member
arg-fallbackName="Nesslig20"/>
On youtube I am in an argument with someone arguing that sexes or genders shouldn't be treated as equals since a man and a women have definitive differences. Sure, we are a dimorphic species, that is still no justification for inequality with regard to treatment and rights.

After arguing for a while, he keeps coming up with worse arguments and comebacks everytime. After complaining about quotas in Australia I pointed out that quotas are to ensure that there is a minimum of 30% to 40% of representatives in a governing body are women. Since we want equality.

This was his comeback
100% of the people who have babies are women. That's not equality.

Not kidding!

And after complaining about women's rights to have an abortion I pointed out that both men and women have full bodily rights. You have a right to not donate an organ and women have a right to not continue a pregnancy. Both cases have to give consent.

His counter argument
Also, your argument about pregnancy is fundamentally faulty. A murderer could say that since since they have full rights over what happens to their own body then they can kill anyone they like, and nobody has a right to stop them. If you try to stop them from killing then you are interfering with what they are doing with their own body.

Not noticing the difference between someone who determines what happens to their own body as in terminating a pregnancy and someone who determines what happens to someone else's body as in murder. I hope he is a troll, really I don't think someone can be this dumb.
 
arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,

Although I have my own concerns with quotas, I think his argument about interfering with rights is confused,

A murderer killing another person in his mind appears to be the same as a woman terminating a pregnancy.

The key is the difference between the (already) born and the unborn - clearly, the former takes precedence over the latter.

For a murderer to kill someone, they are killing a fellow born - a woman terminating a pregnancy is the born killing the unborn.

Here's an interesting article on the Christian attitudes to abortion over the centuries.

It should be noted that in earlier times in Ireland, abortion was considered a lesser evil than to bring a baby into the world only for it to starve to death.

This is a clear case of the born taking precedence over the unborn.

Kindest regards,

James
 
arg-fallbackName="he_who_is_nobody"/>
Nesslig20 said:
This was his comeback
100% of the people who have babies are women. That's not equality.

Not kidding!

It honestly reads as if you are dealing with a troll. I bet the next things this person says to you will be equating abortion to the Holocaust. This does not seem worth your time.
 
arg-fallbackName="Nesslig20"/>
he_who_is_nobody said:
It honestly reads as if you are dealing with a troll. I bet the next things this person says to you will be equating abortion to the Holocaust. This does not seem worth your time.

After I responded to that, he gave me this:
The murderer is moving their own body, and using it as they see fit. I'm not sure why you can't see this.

And after I responded to that by pointing out the obvious that bodily integrity doesn't mean you can murder someone.
That is exactly what you are arguing for. You are arguing that a woman has a right to kill the offspring which she carries inside her, just because she is pregnant.

I will take your advice that he is a troll.
 
arg-fallbackName="he_who_is_nobody"/>
Nesslig20 said:
he_who_is_nobody said:
It honestly reads as if you are dealing with a troll. I bet the next things this person says to you will be equating abortion to the Holocaust. This does not seem worth your time.

After I responded to that, he gave me this:
The murderer is moving their own body, and using it as they see fit. I'm not sure why you can't see this.

And after I responded to that by pointing out the obvious that bodily integrity doesn't mean you can murder someone.
That is exactly what you are arguing for. You are arguing that a woman has a right to kill the offspring which she carries inside her, just because she is pregnant.

I will take your advice that he is a troll.

All just appeal to emotion. That is all the anti-choice side seems to have.
 
arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,

Apart from my point about the born taking precedence over the unborn, the fetus has 50% of the mother's genes.

And the Supreme Court just struck down the HB2 legislation of Texas.

Kindest regards,

James
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
The most bizarre argument I ever faced on this topic, and it was repeated and repeated, and others joined in to crow about it as if it were the coup de grace was...

Imagine you were on a battlefield and had been shot - you're dying; bleeding out. Would you want your would-be rescuer to be male or female?

I had to read it several times to see if I'd missed something.

When I said that I'd be fucking elated regardless of the gender of my would-be rescuer, they called me a liar! :?

Of course, my question was never answered as to whether they'd rather bleed out or be rescued by a woman. :lol:
 
arg-fallbackName="Laurens"/>
I think a lot of people can't get their heads around the idea of equal opportunity and treatment under the law. They seem to confuse this rather simple concept with somehow trying to claim the genders and somehow biologically equal. No one reasonable would make such a claim. I guess its just easier to argue against than the argument that men and women should be paid equally for the same work.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
 
arg-fallbackName="Tree"/>
It seems like a simple idea but propagandists will continue to conflate equality of opportunity with equality of outcome, or try to prove lack of equal opportunity from lack of equal outcome.

You also get outright misandry masked as gender equality. Shit like "objectifying women is sexist" which as far as I can tell means nothing other than you're a straight male and you get a boner looking at ladies. Basically you'd have to be impotent or gay to not be sexist.

And when they run out of real issues they'll just nitpick trivial stuff like women in video games and say it's sexism and "toxic gaming culture" the reason why more women don't play Counter-Strike or whatever. (Even though you can play it single-player with bots and never deal with other players or make a female-only server.) Maybe, just maybe, there's a female nature that shooters don't generally appeal to and no amount of effort is going to make more ladies play shooters.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Tree said:
It seems like a simple idea but propagandists will continue to conflate equality of opportunity with equality of outcome, or try to prove lack of equal opportunity from lack of equal outcome.


Yep, propagandists will do that indeed, regardless of the lack of relevance, lack of reality, and lack of context.... they'll still bring that contention up, regardless that it's a content-free vacuity.
 
arg-fallbackName="BoganUSAFFLClerk"/>
After complaining about quotas in Australia I pointed out that quotas are to ensure that there is a minimum of 30% to 40% of representatives in a governing body are women. Since we want equality.
Do you want so called equality over competency? Quotas don't guarantee or make government great if you create an arbitrary standard of x number of women and men they doesn't equate to equality it equates to bureaucracy. Also why isn't it 50/50 after all equality? The premise doesn't square with the argument.
 
Last edited:
arg-fallbackName="amorrow2"/>
I am in favor of passage of the Equal Rights Amendment in the US Constitution. The most visible opponent to it was the late Phyllis Schlafly. Her son, Andrew Schlafly is also a lawyer and activist with similar views.

 
arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,

The most bizarre argument I ever faced on this topic, and it was repeated and repeated, and others joined in to crow about it as if it were the coup de grace was...

Imagine you were on a battlefield and had been shot - you're dying; bleeding out. Would you want your would-be rescuer to be male or female?

I had to read it several times to see if I'd missed something.

When I said that I'd be fucking elated regardless of the gender of my would-be rescuer, they called me a liar! :?

Of course, my question was never answered as to whether they'd rather bleed out or be rescued by a woman. :lol:
They're assuming that:
1) that you are male;
2) that you're heterosexual.

So, really regardless of whether you're male or not, and the whether your rescuer is male or female, it actually depends on your sexual orientation whether you'd be elated or not.

More importantly, as was noted, the question is: whether your rescuer aligns with your orientation or not, would you prefer to die rather than be rescued?

Kindest regards,

James
 
Back
Top