A total biological equality between the sexes?

[Moreno]

It seems majority of people on this forum support designer babies.

I don't claim I do support it myself, but would be glad to know opinion of other people: if designer babies will ever become a commonplace, should humanity try to erase any difference between males and females and any sexual inequality by means of genetic engineering and modification? Should females become as tall, physically strong, having brains of the same size as males? Should they have the same ability to aggressive self-defense and military jobs? Or even humanity may go so far some day and endow females with ability to impregnate the males, making equality complete in this way? Or perhaps we need to give even some allowance to females by making them stronger and taller than males taking in account what they experience? Please take a note this is just an assumption and you may regard it just as a joke. 

Edited January 18, 2020 by Moreno

[Strange]

12 minutes ago, Moreno said:

It seems majority of people on this forum support designer babies

What do you base that on? The poll in that post, where 6 people say they are in favour? Do you think 6 people is the majority of the people on this forum?

[dimreepr]

27 minutes ago, Moreno said:

It seems majority of people on this forum support designer babies.

I don't claim I do support it myself, but would be glad to know opinion of other people: if designer babies will ever become a commonplace, should humanity try to erase any difference between males and females and any sexual inequality by means of genetic engineering and modification? Should females become as tall, physically strong, having brains of the same size as males? Should they have the same ability to aggressive self-defense and military jobs? Or even humanity may go so far some day and endow females with ability to impregnate the males, making equality complete in this way? Or perhaps we need to give even some allowance to females by making them stronger and taller than males taking in account what they experience? Please take a note this is just an assumption and you may regard it just as a joke. 

Why not accept the differences and equality?

[Moreno]

Quote

Why not accept the differences and equality?

Equality can be only formal if there are significant biological differences...

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Moreno said:

It seems majority of people on this forum support designer babies.

I don't claim I do support it myself, but would be glad to know opinion of other people: if designer babies will ever become a commonplace, should humanity try to erase any difference between males and females and any sexual inequality by means of genetic engineering and modification? Should females become as tall, physically strong, having brains of the same size as males? Should they have the same ability to aggressive self-defense and military jobs? Or even humanity may go so far some day and endow females with ability to impregnate the males, making equality complete in this way? Or perhaps we need to give even some allowance to females by making them stronger and taller than males taking in account what they experience? Please take a note this is just an assumption and you may regard it just as a joke. 

I was thinking it might make more sense to erase the differences between males and females, by making the males more like the females.

[dimreepr]

23 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I was thinking it might make more sense to erase the differences between males and females, by making the males more like the females.

to be fair, whats the difference?

32 minutes ago, Moreno said:

Equality can be only formal if there are significant biological differences...

there are...

[zapatos]

48 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

to be fair, whats the difference?

 

Well, for one they seem to have a better understanding of biology, psychology and sociology than some men.

[Raider5678]

49 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Well, for one they seem to have a better understanding of biology, psychology and sociology than some men.

Wouldn't this fall under the same area as saying men are more ambitious then women?

(Any statements in the following paragraph is about averages. If I accidentally make a blanket statement, assume I meant it as an average).

"Men are more assertive and more aggressive then women."

This is commonly used to describe why men and women seem to have different success levels in different fields. I.E. Men are more assertive and more aggressive, therefore, they have a higher tendency to do demand raises more often, etc. This in turn can result in the gender wage gap.

However, that doesn't mean it's biological. It's quite easy to look at the culture and see why men tend to be more aggressive and assertive: it's encouraged for boys more then it is for girls. And that manifests itself as they grow older into repercussions that last for decades and persists across generations.

Likewise though, women having a better understanding of biology, psychology, and sociology can easily be explained by differences in how they're raised. I.E. Women understand emotions and health more then men, therefore, they have a higher tendency to understand biology, psychology, and sociology better then men. However, that doesn't mean it's biological. It's quite easy to look at the culture and see why women tend to understand that more: it's encouraged for girls to express themselves and get help when they're in pain. Boys are taught to "man up" and deal with it.

 

At the end of the day though, both forms of being raised have their advantages and disadvantages.(Whether or not the advantages/disadvantages are evenly distributed, is a matter of debate. But not in this thread.) But regardless of that, biologically modifying someone isn't likely to change this.

 

P.S. This is an example. If latest data shows something about men/women and aggressiveness being contrary to what I just said, it still doesn't defeat the point of my example.

Edited January 18, 2020 by Raider5678

[Moreno]

39 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

But regardless of that, biologically modifying someone isn't likely to change this.

 

But men are much taller and stronger than females on average and therefore a female often have no chances to stand male aggression one on one in a closed environment. I think that humans in general rather physically weak and too vulnerable but with females situation gets critical. 

[zapatos]

Just now, Moreno said:

But men are much taller and stronger than females on average and therefore a female often have no chances to stand male aggression one on one in a closed environment. I think that humans in general rather physically weak and too vulnerable but with females situation gets critical. 

So why not make the men more like the women?

[MigL]

I know some women ( powerlifter, used to work at the local GM plant ) who can kick all your asses...

But seriously, physical strength is mostly a function of hormones, and genes only determine the achievable  limit.
Incidentally those same hormones will also affect a female's ambitiousness and temperament.

[Raider5678]

12 minutes ago, zapatos said:

So why not make the men more like the women?

If the only metric we're using here is pure utility, it doesn't make sense to make men more like women.

Strength is far more often a helpful trait then a bad trait. It's like saying because person X has a disadvantage, we should give person Y a disadvantage. Why not just get rid of person X's disadvantage?

 

Tallness is debatable. But tallness(at least in the metric you guys are talking about), isn't necessarily the thing giving the advantage. It's the strength.

 

19 minutes ago, Moreno said:

But men are much taller and stronger than females on average and therefore a female often have no chances to stand male aggression one on one in a closed environment. I think that humans in general rather physically weak and too vulnerable but with females situation gets critical. 

I was responding to Zapatos' comment about women understanding biology, psychology, and sociology better then men.

As for the physical, if we're focusing on eliminating all our differences(which in and of itself is a debatable concept to me. I think the differences between men and women should be applauded, not eliminated), it makes more sense to start injecting women with hormones to force them to be stronger and bigger like men, then it does to inject men with hormones to force them to be weaker and smaller like women.

[Moreno]

37 minutes ago, zapatos said:

So why not make the men more like the women?

In order to erase differences completely we would need to endow men with the ability to get pregnant from the females. Not to say this is completely impossible. This is what sea horses and similar species are doing for millions of years. But it would be tremendously difficult task for genetic engineering. Without that there always will be some principal evolutionary differences related to the same sex competition and therefore anything else. But this is not what I propose. 

[zapatos]

4 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

If the only metric we're using here is pure utility, it doesn't make sense to make men more like women.

Strength is far more often a helpful trait then a bad trait. It's like saying because person X has a disadvantage, we should give person Y a disadvantage. Why not just get rid of person X's disadvantage?

Strength is relative. If today's strongest men could only bench press 100 pounds then saying we should make women as strong as men means they could only pick up a large sack of potatoes. There is nothing magical about the strength of men. Why not target everyone to be as strong as a gorilla, or an elephant?

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Strength is relative. If today's strongest men could only bench press 100 pounds then saying we should make women as strong as men means they could only pick up a large sack of potatoes. There is nothing magical about the strength of men. Why not target everyone to be as strong as a gorilla, or an elephant?

That's not the point I was making.

Why would we make one group weaker, as opposed to the other stronger? Not saying we should do either. But if we have to pick one......

 

 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

That's not the point I was making.

Why would we make one group weaker, as opposed to the other stronger? Not saying we should do either. But if we have to pick one......

 

 

Because the objective of the OP was was make them equivalent. 

[Raider5678]

10 hours ago, zapatos said:

Because the objective of the OP was was make them equivalent. 

I understand that.

But if there are two ways of accomplishing that, making women stronger or men weaker, why would we make men weaker?

 

You originally asked why wouldn't we make men more like women instead of women more like men. I pointed out that in the context of strength, you could either strengthen one group, or weaken the other group. Why would you weaken a group, instead of just making the other group stronger?

[dimreepr]

58 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I understand that.

But if there are two ways of accomplishing that, making women stronger or men weaker, why would we make men weaker?

 

You originally asked why wouldn't we make men more like women instead of women more like men. I pointed out that in the context of strength, you could either strengthen one group, or weaken the other group. Why would you weaken a group, instead of just making the other group stronger?

to what end? vive la difference, as strength is often its own weakness.

Edited January 19, 2020 by dimreepr

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

I understand that.

But if there are two ways of accomplishing that, making women stronger or men weaker, why would we make men weaker?

 

You originally asked why wouldn't we make men more like women instead of women more like men. I pointed out that in the context of strength, you could either strengthen one group, or weaken the other group. Why would you weaken a group, instead of just making the other group stronger?

Because it doesn't matter. Pick one. Pros and cons going both ways. If stronger they can lift more. If stronger they need more resources to survive. More food. More clothing. Bigger vehicles. 

There is nothing inherently beneficial about the strength of man. It is an arbitrary target.

[iNow]

39 minutes ago, zapatos said:

There is nothing inherently beneficial about the strength of man. It is an arbitrary target.

It may be easier to understand your point if one thinks about trying to survive in a resource constrained environment. Increased strength required increased calories. When food is scarce, that’ll lead to increased suffering and increased starvation. 

There are other similar examples, but Zaps point remains. The target Raider is setting is arbitrary and context/situation dependent. It is not objectively better as is being suggested. 

[dimreepr]

but less easy to understand in a resource rich environment.

[iNow]

No, not really since the core point is that it’s context dependent and not objectively inherently true 

[dimreepr]

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

No, not really since the core point is that it’s context dependent and not objectively inherently true 

give it time.

[naitche]

On 1/20/2020 at 3:55 AM, iNow said:

No, not really since the core point is that it’s context dependent and not objectively inherently true 

Any 'difference' must be . 

Surely difference is not the same thing as equality. Accepting diversity isn't happening if you want to eliminate it.

 Inequality is context and perspective dependent. It doesn't decide a persons potential or value to their environment beyond  an arbitrary context or perspective. 

i think acceptance of diversity is where equality comes from. Understanding that any persons perceived or contextual weaknesses or 'faults' affect  just a fraction of a persons reality. Its relative, but doesn't decide 'value' or potential. Context and  perspective give value. Or withhold it.

Edited January 31, 2020 by naitche