All things Transgender related

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

I'm happy to answer all these questions, but I am curious: how many of you with kids get asked why you're choosing to raise them as gendered?

I'd assume very few.  But you have to understand you'd be in the vast minority and while many would have negative connotations in asking, many also would just like to understand.  I get asked a lot of questions about a lot of things.  Specifically related to parenting choices throughout all the years. It's not uncommon or unique for people to ask questions and even judge your parenting choices.  

Was your initial decision to raise your daughter as a daughter a conscious choice? I.e., did you sit down and ask "should we raise our child as a girl?"

Ummmm maybe since I wanted a girl more than anything, though certainly not in regards to marketing “girl” things. 

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

I'm happy to answer all these questions, but I am curious: how many of you with kids get asked why you're choosing to raise them as gendered?

I'd assume very few.  But you have to understand you'd be in the vast minority and while many would have negative connotations in asking, many also would just like to understand.  I get asked a lot of questions about a lot of things.  Specifically related to parenting choices throughout all the years. It's not uncommon or unique for people to ask questions and even judge your parenting choices.  

Was your initial decision to raise your daughter as a daughter a conscious choice? I.e., did you sit down and ask "should we raise our child as a girl?"

Ummmm maybe since I wanted a girl more than anything, though certainly not in regards to marketing “girl” things. 

Quick followup clarification, if I may. It sounds like you're saying to find out you were excited to *learn* you were having a girl, not that you decided to raise her as a girl. Is that right?

Correct. But knowing the world in which I live in I was excited to raise a girl that could be everything (and to me she is and she has the potential to be amazing her whole life...I’m biased though).

I was excited for a girl because, in my experience, they are quicker learners, develop faster and are more thoughtful. And adorable. Boys are mainly gross

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

I'm happy to answer all these questions, but I am curious: how many of you with kids get asked why you're choosing to raise them as gendered?

I'd assume very few.  But you have to understand you'd be in the vast minority and while many would have negative connotations in asking, many also would just like to understand.  I get asked a lot of questions about a lot of things.  Specifically related to parenting choices throughout all the years. It's not uncommon or unique for people to ask questions and even judge your parenting choices.  

Was your initial decision to raise your daughter as a daughter a conscious choice? I.e., did you sit down and ask "should we raise our child as a girl?"

Ummmm maybe since I wanted a girl more than anything, though certainly not in regards to marketing “girl” things. 

Quick followup clarification, if I may. It sounds like you're saying to find out you were excited to *learn* you were having a girl, not that you decided to raise her as a girl. Is that right?

See all five of our kids we raise as boys and girls.  What they end up choosing later on in life is up to them and I will love them all no matter what.  I just don’t think the gender neutral thing benefits anyone.  Imo calling them he/she has no bearing on whether or not they are trans. If anything I would think gender neutral would confuse a kid even more. 

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mcgruff10 said:

I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing.  What is the purpose?  Won’t a person transition either way?

Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process.  If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can. 

So here's where I get hung up... The metrics I have seen show that the number of trans is .6% of the population.  There's probably an MOE in there, but still maybe 1% tops.  It seems like a lot of effort and construction of your life for something that is very unlikely that they will identify with a gender different than their birth sex.  And how do you know that there's no unintended consequences of that action, regarding the child's assimilation into the chosen gender?  Perhaps they have trouble adapting and feel excluded in pre-K, etc.  

@ecdanc?

As I’ve said briefly elsewhere in this thread, I believe that gender is harmful, as such. I have not emphasized that part of our motivation for fear it will chafe those here with different views. 

Gender is harmful?  Now that you mention it, it would be nice for you to explain what you mean.

I consider it a discursive formation without which the world would be a better place. 

So you say it's harmful and you saw better place without it.  Please describe for me what you believe to be harmful about it and how the world would be better off without it.

Historically, the power/knowledge of gender has justified and sustained an indescribable array of injustices and inequalities (what might broadly be called “patriarchy”). 

So you mean males have caused injustices.  Maybe we should all just identify as female until the time of selection (whatever that means), and then 50% of the population could cross over.  Pretty sure we'll still have war, bullying, power struggles, etc.  But hey, those boys won't cause any wars in their first three years of life, so that's good.  

I think you're hearing what you want to hear. I've spoken only of gender as a discourse (as power/knowledge); I've made no comments  about any specific subjects exercising power within that discourse. 

You used the term patriarchy.  How else would one interpret that comment than being an indictment of males for their injustice and inequalities.  And for the record, you'll get no argument from me that men are the source of said ills in history.  But I'm not sure how not identifying with a gender until the child decides will prevent the same from occurring.  

Good point: I should clarify. The term "patriarchy"--in my discipline--exceeds/diverges from the etymological origins of the word. I intend "patriarchy" to refer to an historically specific set of power relations that relies upon, but is not coextensive with the discourse of gender.

As for your last sentence: I do what I can.  

So wait a minute.. "patriarchy" for your exceeds the traditional definition, and you are applying it to any/all genders.  Yet your solution is not to assign a gender.  So therefore, how can it be patriarchy or gender causing the issues?  And logically following, how does not assigning the gender help the problem?  This whole thing is circular reasoning.  You point to gender, call out patriarchy, and then say it's not reliant upon gender.  It all seems like an exercise in futility, to ease the transition of the .6%.  

I think there's two different things going on here:

First, I specifically said patriarchy does rely upon gender, but is not coextensive with it. I'll try to be clearer. Gender is a broad discursive formation that operates in multiple forms across multiple times and spaces. Patriarchy--as I'm using it--is a specific set of power relations that has emerged (and endured) in one of those times and spaces. We need to get the relationship of these terms figured out before we move onto the other elements. 

With risk of jumping the gun, however, I'll go ahead and say I'm not sure I understand the other point running through here. Gender exists as a discourse. In my perfect world, it would not. Therefore, I'm doing everything I can to resist the discourse from within it. 

One last point: I may not have all the answers, but .6% of the world population is over 45 million people. I'd do a lot to make that many peoples' lives better.

I'm sorry, that first paragraph is meaningless.  I read it six times and I can't draw any conclusion from it.   All you're talking about is etymology.  What terms do we better need to understand the relationship until moving onto what elements?    

Now my apologies, perhaps it's because I operate it in a financial world and we don't speak in the abstract. I worked in a heavily academic financial environment for about 10 years and it was essentially mental masturbation.  You had reams of analysts and engineers flowing through with data sets where 1. they couldn't draw concrete conclusions or 2. what they were recommending was completely unable to be operational.  I think my friend @benjs has suffered through this in his career as well.  

Since you've tried to function as tone police a few times, I'm going to do the same for you: your inability to understand what I'm saying does not make what I'm saying meaningless. Just ask me about the parts/words you don't understand. I'm really trying to simplify things as much as I can, so help me help you. 

Your 2nd paragraph seems to be a bit of a non sequitur, but I'm not one to pass up an opportunity: the world of finance is completely abstract.  

I asked the question.  I'll type it again: What terms do we better need to understand the relationship until moving onto what elements?   This is what I need to understand to understand what you are saying.  You said "We need to get the relationship of these terms figured out before we onto the other elements".  I'm asking what terms and what elements.  Make that statement again, with more detail.

And finance is not abstract in practice. You make analytically informed decisions, weigh the risk factors, and move forward.  Otherwise you get nothing done and generate only expenses.  

I was trying to be polite. When I said, "we need go get the relationship of these terms figured out..." i was trying to gently say "you're entirely misunderstanding what I'm saying." Being as generous as I could with your post, I was suggesting that you might have a point about the relationship between patriarchy and gender, but you needed to back up, because your point wasn't responding to what I actually said. So, let me ask, which part of the relationship between gender and patriarchy are you struggling with? 

I'm gonna let the other part drop, because I'm not trying to pick that fight. I'd just say: maybe try not to be so dismissive of academic thought. 

You're expanding patriarchy to mean something other than its traditional meaning, going so far as saying it crosses gender.  Okay, so I'll go back to my original point, if patriarchy isn't limited to the male gender, then why make the claim that your method of child rearing could help the centuries of abuse and crimes generated by the patriarchy?  It's circular reasoning.  

I'm not dissing academia.  I spent my fair share in post graduate schooling.  My brother is a PhD in history and we argue all the time about fascinating topics.  Although he was so fed up with that life, that he's now an IT executive at Verizon Business.   Academia is great for its environment, but in the world where you have a P&L, you kinda have to make decisions and execute.  You can't labor on the mental masturbation part.  That's my point.  

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mcgruff10 said:

I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing.  What is the purpose?  Won’t a person transition either way?

Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process.  If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can. 

So here's where I get hung up... The metrics I have seen show that the number of trans is .6% of the population.  There's probably an MOE in there, but still maybe 1% tops.  It seems like a lot of effort and construction of your life for something that is very unlikely that they will identify with a gender different than their birth sex.  And how do you know that there's no unintended consequences of that action, regarding the child's assimilation into the chosen gender?  Perhaps they have trouble adapting and feel excluded in pre-K, etc.  

@ecdanc?

As I’ve said briefly elsewhere in this thread, I believe that gender is harmful, as such. I have not emphasized that part of our motivation for fear it will chafe those here with different views. 

Gender is harmful?  Now that you mention it, it would be nice for you to explain what you mean.

I consider it a discursive formation without which the world would be a better place. 

So you say it's harmful and you saw better place without it.  Please describe for me what you believe to be harmful about it and how the world would be better off without it.

Historically, the power/knowledge of gender has justified and sustained an indescribable array of injustices and inequalities (what might broadly be called “patriarchy”). 

So you mean males have caused injustices.  Maybe we should all just identify as female until the time of selection (whatever that means), and then 50% of the population could cross over.  Pretty sure we'll still have war, bullying, power struggles, etc.  But hey, those boys won't cause any wars in their first three years of life, so that's good.  

I think you're hearing what you want to hear. I've spoken only of gender as a discourse (as power/knowledge); I've made no comments  about any specific subjects exercising power within that discourse. 

You used the term patriarchy.  How else would one interpret that comment than being an indictment of males for their injustice and inequalities.  And for the record, you'll get no argument from me that men are the source of said ills in history.  But I'm not sure how not identifying with a gender until the child decides will prevent the same from occurring.  

Good point: I should clarify. The term "patriarchy"--in my discipline--exceeds/diverges from the etymological origins of the word. I intend "patriarchy" to refer to an historically specific set of power relations that relies upon, but is not coextensive with the discourse of gender.

As for your last sentence: I do what I can.  

So wait a minute.. "patriarchy" for your exceeds the traditional definition, and you are applying it to any/all genders.  Yet your solution is not to assign a gender.  So therefore, how can it be patriarchy or gender causing the issues?  And logically following, how does not assigning the gender help the problem?  This whole thing is circular reasoning.  You point to gender, call out patriarchy, and then say it's not reliant upon gender.  It all seems like an exercise in futility, to ease the transition of the .6%.  

I think there's two different things going on here:

First, I specifically said patriarchy does rely upon gender, but is not coextensive with it. I'll try to be clearer. Gender is a broad discursive formation that operates in multiple forms across multiple times and spaces. Patriarchy--as I'm using it--is a specific set of power relations that has emerged (and endured) in one of those times and spaces. We need to get the relationship of these terms figured out before we move onto the other elements. 

With risk of jumping the gun, however, I'll go ahead and say I'm not sure I understand the other point running through here. Gender exists as a discourse. In my perfect world, it would not. Therefore, I'm doing everything I can to resist the discourse from within it. 

One last point: I may not have all the answers, but .6% of the world population is over 45 million people. I'd do a lot to make that many peoples' lives better.

I'm sorry, that first paragraph is meaningless.  I read it six times and I can't draw any conclusion from it.   All you're talking about is etymology.  What terms do we better need to understand the relationship until moving onto what elements?    

Now my apologies, perhaps it's because I operate it in a financial world and we don't speak in the abstract. I worked in a heavily academic financial environment for about 10 years and it was essentially mental masturbation.  You had reams of analysts and engineers flowing through with data sets where 1. they couldn't draw concrete conclusions or 2. what they were recommending was completely unable to be operational.  I think my friend @benjs has suffered through this in his career as well.  

Since you've tried to function as tone police a few times, I'm going to do the same for you: your inability to understand what I'm saying does not make what I'm saying meaningless. Just ask me about the parts/words you don't understand. I'm really trying to simplify things as much as I can, so help me help you. 

Your 2nd paragraph seems to be a bit of a non sequitur, but I'm not one to pass up an opportunity: the world of finance is completely abstract.  

First, as the financial analyst on here has already stated - no, the financial world does not operate in abstracts. If you don't effectively mitigate financial risk, make decisions logically, show tangible results, you do not reap financial benefit, nor climb in that world. That's almost the exact opposite of "completely abstract". I could tell you this just from contact with financial advisors throughout my not-yet-30 years on this planet. 

Next, your statement very clearly reads that the existence of genders is the catalyst to an exploitable power dynamic where men receive the advantage. I might agree with you if we didn't see so many non-gender patterns of people organizing themselves into groups, one group recognizing a unique advantage and exploiting the situation, and disregarding those who are poised to be in a losing position. Religion. Politics. Nationalism. 

If we are universally opposed to divisions, it's time to stop talking about categories of division, and instead commit to actively embrace differences - the universal catalyst to reparations between fractured societies. Until our attitude surrounding those who differ from us becomes a positive one instead of a negative one, this divide won't heal, at best it just won't worsen.

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mcgruff10 said:

I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing.  What is the purpose?  Won’t a person transition either way?

Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process.  If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can. 

So here's where I get hung up... The metrics I have seen show that the number of trans is .6% of the population.  There's probably an MOE in there, but still maybe 1% tops.  It seems like a lot of effort and construction of your life for something that is very unlikely that they will identify with a gender different than their birth sex.  And how do you know that there's no unintended consequences of that action, regarding the child's assimilation into the chosen gender?  Perhaps they have trouble adapting and feel excluded in pre-K, etc.  

@ecdanc?

As I’ve said briefly elsewhere in this thread, I believe that gender is harmful, as such. I have not emphasized that part of our motivation for fear it will chafe those here with different views. 

Gender is harmful?  Now that you mention it, it would be nice for you to explain what you mean.

I consider it a discursive formation without which the world would be a better place. 

So you say it's harmful and you saw better place without it.  Please describe for me what you believe to be harmful about it and how the world would be better off without it.

Historically, the power/knowledge of gender has justified and sustained an indescribable array of injustices and inequalities (what might broadly be called “patriarchy”). 

So you mean males have caused injustices.  Maybe we should all just identify as female until the time of selection (whatever that means), and then 50% of the population could cross over.  Pretty sure we'll still have war, bullying, power struggles, etc.  But hey, those boys won't cause any wars in their first three years of life, so that's good.  

I think you're hearing what you want to hear. I've spoken only of gender as a discourse (as power/knowledge); I've made no comments  about any specific subjects exercising power within that discourse. 

You used the term patriarchy.  How else would one interpret that comment than being an indictment of males for their injustice and inequalities.  And for the record, you'll get no argument from me that men are the source of said ills in history.  But I'm not sure how not identifying with a gender until the child decides will prevent the same from occurring.  

Good point: I should clarify. The term "patriarchy"--in my discipline--exceeds/diverges from the etymological origins of the word. I intend "patriarchy" to refer to an historically specific set of power relations that relies upon, but is not coextensive with the discourse of gender.

As for your last sentence: I do what I can.  

So wait a minute.. "patriarchy" for your exceeds the traditional definition, and you are applying it to any/all genders.  Yet your solution is not to assign a gender.  So therefore, how can it be patriarchy or gender causing the issues?  And logically following, how does not assigning the gender help the problem?  This whole thing is circular reasoning.  You point to gender, call out patriarchy, and then say it's not reliant upon gender.  It all seems like an exercise in futility, to ease the transition of the .6%.  

I think there's two different things going on here:

First, I specifically said patriarchy does rely upon gender, but is not coextensive with it. I'll try to be clearer. Gender is a broad discursive formation that operates in multiple forms across multiple times and spaces. Patriarchy--as I'm using it--is a specific set of power relations that has emerged (and endured) in one of those times and spaces. We need to get the relationship of these terms figured out before we move onto the other elements. 

With risk of jumping the gun, however, I'll go ahead and say I'm not sure I understand the other point running through here. Gender exists as a discourse. In my perfect world, it would not. Therefore, I'm doing everything I can to resist the discourse from within it. 

One last point: I may not have all the answers, but .6% of the world population is over 45 million people. I'd do a lot to make that many peoples' lives better.

I'm sorry, that first paragraph is meaningless.  I read it six times and I can't draw any conclusion from it.   All you're talking about is etymology.  What terms do we better need to understand the relationship until moving onto what elements?    

Now my apologies, perhaps it's because I operate it in a financial world and we don't speak in the abstract. I worked in a heavily academic financial environment for about 10 years and it was essentially mental masturbation.  You had reams of analysts and engineers flowing through with data sets where 1. they couldn't draw concrete conclusions or 2. what they were recommending was completely unable to be operational.  I think my friend @benjs has suffered through this in his career as well.  

Since you've tried to function as tone police a few times, I'm going to do the same for you: your inability to understand what I'm saying does not make what I'm saying meaningless. Just ask me about the parts/words you don't understand. I'm really trying to simplify things as much as I can, so help me help you. 

Your 2nd paragraph seems to be a bit of a non sequitur, but I'm not one to pass up an opportunity: the world of finance is completely abstract.  

I asked the question.  I'll type it again: What terms do we better need to understand the relationship until moving onto what elements?   This is what I need to understand to understand what you are saying.  You said "We need to get the relationship of these terms figured out before we onto the other elements".  I'm asking what terms and what elements.  Make that statement again, with more detail.

And finance is not abstract in practice. You make analytically informed decisions, weigh the risk factors, and move forward.  Otherwise you get nothing done and generate only expenses.  

I was trying to be polite. When I said, "we need go get the relationship of these terms figured out..." i was trying to gently say "you're entirely misunderstanding what I'm saying." Being as generous as I could with your post, I was suggesting that you might have a point about the relationship between patriarchy and gender, but you needed to back up, because your point wasn't responding to what I actually said. So, let me ask, which part of the relationship between gender and patriarchy are you struggling with? 

I'm gonna let the other part drop, because I'm not trying to pick that fight. I'd just say: maybe try not to be so dismissive of academic thought. 

You were unclear in the way you phrased your argument, threw in unnecessary prose, bastardized the definition of patriarchy to a non-dictionary definition that only you would know, made inaccurate claims about finance to a financial advisor, and then criticized said person of being dismissive of academic thought. In my experience in academia (Bachelor's in Structural Engineering), we debated based on a foundation of established facts and evidence. Have they changed that since I left?

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

benjs said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mcgruff10 said:

I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing.  What is the purpose?  Won’t a person transition either way?

Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process.  If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can. 

So here's where I get hung up... The metrics I have seen show that the number of trans is .6% of the population.  There's probably an MOE in there, but still maybe 1% tops.  It seems like a lot of effort and construction of your life for something that is very unlikely that they will identify with a gender different than their birth sex.  And how do you know that there's no unintended consequences of that action, regarding the child's assimilation into the chosen gender?  Perhaps they have trouble adapting and feel excluded in pre-K, etc.  

@ecdanc?

As I’ve said briefly elsewhere in this thread, I believe that gender is harmful, as such. I have not emphasized that part of our motivation for fear it will chafe those here with different views. 

Gender is harmful?  Now that you mention it, it would be nice for you to explain what you mean.

I consider it a discursive formation without which the world would be a better place. 

So you say it's harmful and you saw better place without it.  Please describe for me what you believe to be harmful about it and how the world would be better off without it.

Historically, the power/knowledge of gender has justified and sustained an indescribable array of injustices and inequalities (what might broadly be called “patriarchy”). 

So you mean males have caused injustices.  Maybe we should all just identify as female until the time of selection (whatever that means), and then 50% of the population could cross over.  Pretty sure we'll still have war, bullying, power struggles, etc.  But hey, those boys won't cause any wars in their first three years of life, so that's good.  

I think you're hearing what you want to hear. I've spoken only of gender as a discourse (as power/knowledge); I've made no comments  about any specific subjects exercising power within that discourse. 

You used the term patriarchy.  How else would one interpret that comment than being an indictment of males for their injustice and inequalities.  And for the record, you'll get no argument from me that men are the source of said ills in history.  But I'm not sure how not identifying with a gender until the child decides will prevent the same from occurring.  

Good point: I should clarify. The term "patriarchy"--in my discipline--exceeds/diverges from the etymological origins of the word. I intend "patriarchy" to refer to an historically specific set of power relations that relies upon, but is not coextensive with the discourse of gender.

As for your last sentence: I do what I can.  

So wait a minute.. "patriarchy" for your exceeds the traditional definition, and you are applying it to any/all genders.  Yet your solution is not to assign a gender.  So therefore, how can it be patriarchy or gender causing the issues?  And logically following, how does not assigning the gender help the problem?  This whole thing is circular reasoning.  You point to gender, call out patriarchy, and then say it's not reliant upon gender.  It all seems like an exercise in futility, to ease the transition of the .6%.  

I think there's two different things going on here:

First, I specifically said patriarchy does rely upon gender, but is not coextensive with it. I'll try to be clearer. Gender is a broad discursive formation that operates in multiple forms across multiple times and spaces. Patriarchy--as I'm using it--is a specific set of power relations that has emerged (and endured) in one of those times and spaces. We need to get the relationship of these terms figured out before we move onto the other elements. 

With risk of jumping the gun, however, I'll go ahead and say I'm not sure I understand the other point running through here. Gender exists as a discourse. In my perfect world, it would not. Therefore, I'm doing everything I can to resist the discourse from within it. 

One last point: I may not have all the answers, but .6% of the world population is over 45 million people. I'd do a lot to make that many peoples' lives better.

I'm sorry, that first paragraph is meaningless.  I read it six times and I can't draw any conclusion from it.   All you're talking about is etymology.  What terms do we better need to understand the relationship until moving onto what elements?    

Now my apologies, perhaps it's because I operate it in a financial world and we don't speak in the abstract. I worked in a heavily academic financial environment for about 10 years and it was essentially mental masturbation.  You had reams of analysts and engineers flowing through with data sets where 1. they couldn't draw concrete conclusions or 2. what they were recommending was completely unable to be operational.  I think my friend @benjs has suffered through this in his career as well.  

Since you've tried to function as tone police a few times, I'm going to do the same for you: your inability to understand what I'm saying does not make what I'm saying meaningless. Just ask me about the parts/words you don't understand. I'm really trying to simplify things as much as I can, so help me help you. 

Your 2nd paragraph seems to be a bit of a non sequitur, but I'm not one to pass up an opportunity: the world of finance is completely abstract.  

First, as the financial analyst on here has already stated - no, the financial world does not operate in abstracts. If you don't effectively mitigate financial risk, make decisions logically, show tangible results, you do not reap financial benefit, nor climb in that world. That's almost the exact opposite of "completely abstract". I could tell you this just from contact with financial advisors throughout my not-yet-30 years on this planet. 

Next, your statement very clearly reads that the existence of genders is the catalyst to an exploitable power dynamic where men receive the advantage. I might agree with you if we didn't see so many non-gender patterns of people organizing themselves into groups, one group recognizing a unique advantage and exploiting the situation, and disregarding those who are poised to be in a losing position. Religion. Politics. Nationalism. 

If we are universally opposed to divisions, it's time to stop talking about categories of division, and instead commit to actively embrace differences - the universal catalyst to reparations between fractured societies. Until our attitude surrounding those who differ from us becomes a positive one instead of a negative one, this divide won't heal, at best it just won't worsen.

See this is why I love Ben.  He just brought a great argument and came from a different angle from where I was.  The last paragraph is a winner.  We are just creating more subgroups, getting further away from e pluribus unum.  

Ben is weak. Dude can’t even go to Quebec City to see pj.  

Low blow, I so wish I could! heading on vacation with my family on the 24th and didn't want to get greedy