I don’t mean to suggest you may be trans just want to clear up one misconception. Dysphoria is not a requirement to be trans. A person can be trans with zero dysphoria. The only requirement is that you identify as a gender different from your assigned at birth one. This can be on the simple basis of it just feeling more correct for “you” as an identity.

I think the heart of the difference between our views from what I’ve been able to understand from you is this. You view biological differences between men and women as having a sufficient enough reason to support gender roles if in the event the capability of a couple is known.

I view the biological differences as something that should only be considered from a health perspective I.e. crash test dummy’s designed for men and ones designed for women to ensure proper safety testing.

For me the biological differences shouldn’t be considered whether we know a couple’s capabilities or not. Humans are an extremely varied species with lots of overlap between women and men.

There are women who are tall and muscular and men who are short and skinny. There are men who are tall and skinny and women who are short and muscular.

Ultimately the biggest factor is lifestyle and not genetics. A female firefighter could absolutely out strength many males even if she’s short because she works out regularly.

In short I don’t think biological differences are significant enough to be taken into actual consideration outside of specific circumstances like described above. While you as I understand it do believe them to be significant enough a factor to be given consideration if the differences between a couple are known.

I was not angry with my original reply, it could jot in anyway be reasonably taken as angry. I am however a bit frustrated now, in particular with your response to me. To quote what you said,

“Somehow this convo became about humans being hunters and what not. And not the original conversation about dishes and dragons.”

To also quote you’re first comment you said,

“Isn’t this how we function evolutionarily? Like in a hunter and gatherers society, men were predominantly the ones required to do “one-hit” labour like hunting, whereas women were predominantly the ones doing “continual” labour like gathering food.”

You are the one who brought it up. Saying it “somehow” came up like you did is disingenuous and implies my argument is unrelated and can therefore be dismissed.

That is what is now making me a bit frustrated and why I felt it necessary to clear up the way you misconstrued things in your reply to me.

You are free to not respond if you do not want to. If you don’t want to continue I will respect that.

I also want to make sure that everyone reading this understands that them not replying or wanting to end the discussion should not be taken to mean anything one way or another.

Humans were persistence hunters which requires endurance. Lots of strength isn’t really necessary when the prey has exhausted itself.