It literally proves that two separate things can be equal. It’s an eloquent and poignant way of saying “you’re wrong.” And they are wrong, because the only argument was they’re not equal because they’re different.
If they wanted to talk about hormones and muscle mass and other physical things, then yes, your point is valid. But they made a very stupid argument and were proven wrong.
There is absolutely no situation where reducing a conversation on gender to basic algebra isn’t stupid
Except this one. If you’re going to be so fundamentally wrong that you can be refuted by elementary arithmetic, why should anyone bother putting any more thought into it than that? No, you can’t reduce gender relations to a basic math question, but you can reduce thst guy’s take without missing anything important.
There is absolutely no situation where reducing a conversation on gender to basic algebra isn’t stupid
If they were doing so in totality (ie: all conversations on gender being compared to basic algebra) then I’d agree with you. However the response is so targeted, in it’s content and in the context of going after a specific respondent who was saying that things that are different cannot be equal, that I don’t think they fall into this trap.
Hows the second one stupid?
deleted by creator
It literally proves that two separate things can be equal. It’s an eloquent and poignant way of saying “you’re wrong.” And they are wrong, because the only argument was they’re not equal because they’re different.
If they wanted to talk about hormones and muscle mass and other physical things, then yes, your point is valid. But they made a very stupid argument and were proven wrong.
deleted by creator
Except this one. If you’re going to be so fundamentally wrong that you can be refuted by elementary arithmetic, why should anyone bother putting any more thought into it than that? No, you can’t reduce gender relations to a basic math question, but you can reduce thst guy’s take without missing anything important.
deleted by creator
If they were doing so in totality (ie: all conversations on gender being compared to basic algebra) then I’d agree with you. However the response is so targeted, in it’s content and in the context of going after a specific respondent who was saying that things that are different cannot be equal, that I don’t think they fall into this trap.