[ogurechny]

I think that you misunderstood me. Sadly, philosophy is completely absent from “required” education in our “enlightened” world (or presented as narrow-minded bean counting), so capturing “evident things” as results of the thought process is hard.

By one side of equation I meant all those arguments about “men” and “women” altogether. You are absolutely free to state that men are X, and women are Y, and attribute it to Nature as a whole, or scientific data sliced off of it. There is nothing wrong with that by itself. However, the whole other “stable” side which you try to “fix” by this process is no less of an invention.

Say, we're having an argument whether cucumbers are fruits or vegetables. In that case, we can even reach an “official” answer. But it's more important to realise that the whole stage on which we're playing is constructed. “Fruits” and “vegetables” are convenient man-made classifications. Cucumber does not come with a label “I'm a cucumber, as stated in encyclopaedias, etc.” Nor its atoms come with a label “We're parts of that cucumber thing”, nor anything else (note for our young vulgar materialists).

In my opinion, feminist thought taking that step (which — for multiple possible reasons — was not taken even by greatest thinkers) is the most important achievement. Which “wave” is right, or how to “correctly” display your alignment with “correct” movement according to latest fashions are ancillary questions.

[vapg1974]

So philosophically a 48yo, 6ft4 and 200lbs man can be taken as a 5ft4 90lbs woman. That means if I repeat "Charmander" enough times, it will socially construct itself in this reality.

[ogurechny]

What you're saying is “Fat, ugly, flat-chested, etc. women are not real women, I only care about my kind of true women, please only show me these”. That's exactly what I was talking about. The measure to define women in your head is shaped like that, and you reluctantly decide to let someone pass. Yes, it is common. Yes, it is stupid. What's actually new in that?