[Pants-of-dog]

Homo Sapiens has always had significant sexual dimorphism. As had all our prior Homo ancestors, Hominini ancestors and so on all the way back at least to.. well you can really go all the way back to the emergence of sexual reproduction more than 12,000,000,000 years ago. 12,000,000,000 years is a lot of biology to roll back with a political correctness seminar. All credit to the pink haired zealots, they have their work cut out for them.

Since patriarchy has not been around for 12 billion years, I would appreciate it if you or @Victoribus Spolia could clarify the supposed relationship between sexual dimorphism and patriarchy.

[Heisenberg]

I don't know how sexual reproduction can date back 12 billion years when the Earth itself is only 4.5 billion years old.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I don't know how sexual reproduction can date back 12 billion years when the Earth itself is only 4.5 billion years old.

[Victoribus Spolia]

could clarify the supposed relationship between sexual dimorphism and patriarchy.

What needs clarified about it? Men and women are different and the nature of the dimorphism lends itself to men dominating women.

Whats complicated about that Pants?

[SolarCross]

I don't know how sexual reproduction can date back 12 billion years when the Earth itself is only 4.5 billion years old.

Oh my bad I think, it should be 1,200,000,000 years ago (1.2 billion years). I just got carried away with the decimal places.

[Pants-of-dog]

What needs clarified about it? Men and women are different and the nature of the dimorphism lends itself to men dominating women.

Whats complicated about that Pants?

So sexual dimorphism is one of the causes of patriarchy.

This does not mean that patriarchy is hardwired into our genome.

[Heisenberg]

Oh my bad I think, it should be 1,200,000,000 years ago (1.2 billion years). I just got carried away with the decimal places.

No worries. I occasionally enjoy being a tedious pedant.

[Victoribus Spolia]

So sexual dimorphism is one of the causes of patriarchy.

What does this even mean?

This does not mean that patriarchy is hardwired into our genome.

Not if you define patriarchy as social convention, but all the requisite conditions, desires, and motivations for such would be considered as hard-wired.

Hormones alone would tell us this.

Your objection is like complaining that a Tulip bulb is not a Tulip because a Tulip is a flower and a bulb is only a potential-flower.

In the same manner, patriarchy as an order "in-bloom" is related to sexual dimorphism as "patriarchy-in-seed-form"

Even if not all bulbs come into bloom, that does not mean that a Tulip-Bulb is not a potential Tulip-Flower.

The connection is predictable given a plain observation of the dimorphism.

For Example:

If an Alien came to our planet and merely assessed the facts that the male sex was stronger, more aggressive, more analytic, more sexual, larger, and more perceptive and that the female sex is more nurturing, sentimental, weaker, smaller, and more passive and greatly hindered by pregnancy and difficult child-birth......it would invariably and reasonably conclude from this data that human beings are probably patriarchal in their social order.

It would not, and could not, infer from the data of human dimorphism the order of egalitarianism and it takes a complete abandonment of common-sense and reason to say that they would make such a conclusion. We don't make such inferences with animals when we assess dimorphism, why should humans be different?

If you want to say that dimorphism does not necessitate patriarchy. Well of course that is right, no one disagrees with this, because if that were true, there could not be feminism, transgenderism etc., it would be, by definition, impossible.

But thats not the argument being made.

[Pants-of-dog]

What does this even mean?

It emans that sexual dimorphism was one of the things that led to the patriarchy.

Not if you define patriarchy as social convention, but all the requisite conditions, desires, and motivations for such would be considered as hard-wired.

Hormones alone would tell us this.

Your objection is like complaining that a Tulip bulb is not a Tulip because a Tulip is a flower and a bulb is only a potential-flower.

In the same manner, patriarchy as an order "in-bloom" is related to sexual dimorphism as "patriarchy-in-seed-form"

Even if not all bulbs come into bloom, that does not mean that a Tulip-Bulb is not a potential Tulip-Flower.

The connection is predictable given a plain observation of the dimorphism.

For Example:

If an Alien came to our planet and merely assessed the facts that the male sex was stronger, more aggressive, more analytic, more sexual, larger, and more perceptive and that the female sex is more nurturing, sentimental, weaker, smaller, and more passive and greatly hindered by pregnancy and difficult child-birth......it would invariably and reasonably conclude from this data that human beings are probably patriarchal in their social order.

It would not, and could not, infer from the data of human dimorphism the order of egalitarianism and it takes a complete abandonment of common-sense and reason to say that they would make such a conclusion. We don't make such inferences with animals when we assess dimorphism, why should humans be different?

If you want to say that dimorphism does not necessitate patriarchy. Well of course that is right, no one disagrees with this, because if that were true, there could not be feminism, transgenderism etc., it would be, by definition, impossible.

But thats not the argument being made.

As far as I can tell, the argument made was that patriarchy is hardwired.

Here you seem to be saying it is not hardwired, but instead patriarchy is the logical and predictable effect caused by dimorphism as well as other things.

Is this correct?

[Victoribus Spolia]

It emans that sexual dimorphism was one of the things that led to the patriarchy.

It means that patriarchy presumes differences in the sexes, or what might be called dimorphism. Yes.

As far as I can tell, the argument made was that patriarchy is hardwired.

I addressed your misconception of identity very early on, but like I said in my last post, that complaint is basically semantic, its like saying a Tulip Bulb is not a Tulip because a Tulip is a flower.

Its a dumb objection.

The point is almost colloquial in its simplicity, patriarchal roles have a basis in human genetics according evolutionary anthropology which helps to explain its ubiquitous character even among those that DID NOT practice settled grain agriculture (like nomads).

but instead patriarchy is the logical and predictable effect caused by dimorphism as well as other things.

Is this correct?

Patriarchy is the sensibly predictable effect of sexual dimorphism in humans.

That is, a reasonable person without bias either way could reasonably conclude that if a social order were to be predicated on human biology, that social order would not be egalitarian given sexual dimorphism, which indeed lends itself to the opposite.

[Pants-of-dog]

It means that patriarchy presumes differences in the sexes, or what might be called dimorphism. Yes.

This seems like an odd claim to make in light of your previous question.

Why would it matter when sexual dimorphism appeared if the relationship between dimorphism and patriarchy is that supporters of patriarchy noticed sexual dimorphism is a fact?

We all noticed it.

I addressed your misconception of identity very early on, but like I said in my last post, that complaint is basically semantic, its like saying a Tulip Bulb is not a Tulip because a Tulip is a flower.

Its a dumb objection.

The point is almost colloquial in its simplicity, patriarchal roles have a basis in human genetics according evolutionary anthropology which helps to explain its ubiquitous character even among those that DID NOT practice settled grain agriculture (like nomads).

Your tulip analogy is not only not analogous to the relationship between sexual dimorphism and patriarchy.

And yes, I did say that patriarchy may be partially based on sexual dimorphism. So when you say that patriarchy has a basis in dimorphism, we are in agreement.

But that is different from the claim that patriarchy is hardwired, or that it had survival benefits.

Patriarchy is the sensibly predictable effect of sexual dimorphism in humans.

That is, a reasonable person without bias either way could reasonably conclude that if a social order were to be predicated on human biology, that social order would not be egalitarian given sexual dimorphism, which indeed lends itself to the opposite.

It would be extremely reductionist to see all of gender relations as an aspect of sexual dimorphism.

[Victoribus Spolia]

And yes, I did say that patriarchy may be partially based on sexual dimorphism. So when you say that patriarchy has a basis in dimorphism, we are in agreement.

But that is different from the claim that patriarchy is hardwired, or that it had survival benefits.

The claim is that patriarchy has a basis in sexual dimorphism which is hard-wired.

Thus, in this sense, and this sense only, can one say that patriarchy is hardwired. Its hardwired in the sense that it has a basis in biological phenomena (sexual dimorphism), which, according to evolutionary anthropology, were characteristics that were naturally selected in the survival of the human species over the span of millions of years.

Thus, there is a sense that patriarchy has a basis in human hard-wiring (sexual dimorphism), which was in turn naturally selected in human evolution allowing the species to reproduce and survive up until now.

Hence, that this order has had "survival benefits" in the past is not really arguable as the dimorphism itself (which you concede patriarchy has its basis in) developed by the principle of biological survival in a species (natural selection).

If you only mean that we don't know if those survival benefits will continue into the future, well then there is no debate (we agree), but my point was that the changing of our roles to egalitarianism from patriarchy is not only less correspondent to our biology (which is true), but is also not based on human survival up until now which has been grounded in patriarchy and the evolutionarily selected dimorphism between the sexes.

Hence, the advancement of egalitarian social roles can be claimed to:

1. has no basis in human biology (unlike patriarchy, as you conceded),

and therefore;

2. lacks any basis for us to believe that it gives us a survival benefit given human evolutionary history (where the dimorphism behind patriarchy clearly did by getting us this far).

3. That egalitarianism (and secularism) is also correlated with low rates of reproduction only further strengthens this same case as being non-beneficial to the species, as the prime instinct that drives the survival of species is its will to breed and continue on. Egalitarianism has a disturbing lack of will in this regards.

It would be extremely reductionist to see all of gender relations as an aspect of sexual dimorphism.

I would be a soft-reductionist, not a hard-reductionist. Which I already stated earlier.

Pratically, I think the following statement is quite fair:

Women taking the role of child-bearer and rearer has some basis in sexual dimorphism; wearing pink instead of blue does not.

Examples could be multiplied.

[SolarCross]

Since patriarchy has not been around for 12 billion years, I would appreciate it if you or @Victoribus Spolia could clarify the supposed relationship between sexual dimorphism and patriarchy.

Patriarchy literally means "rule by the fathers". It's often overlooked but patriarchy implies the subordination not just of the fairer sex but also of young people too. Groups need leaders to function effectively, consequently social animals, not just humans, will tend to form up into an hierarchy for effective co-ordination of their efforts. Much hangs on a having a good leader rather than a bad one, but what makes a good leader? On a fundamental level the two most important qualities are power and wisdom. Wisdom is won through experience thus all else being equal older people tend to make better leaders than younger people. Power is more mercurial and harder to pin down but for most of human history "power" really starts with personal physical prowess because when it comes to shaping the world as a builder and destroying enemies as a warrior, physical prowess is a necessary minimum. This is where women tend to fall out of the running, a woman might attain wisdom with age as a man may but they are disadvantaged at attaining power due to their weaker physiology.

I wouldn't say matriarchies are impossible or necessarily less effective than patriarchies in all circumstances but I think this is why patriarchies tend to be more numerous and successful.

[Pants-of-dog]

The claim is that patriarchy has a basis in sexual dimorphism which is hard-wired.

Thus, in this sense, and this sense only, can one say that patriarchy is hardwired. Its hardwired in the sense that it has a basis in biological phenomena (sexual dimorphism), which, according to evolutionary anthropology, were characteristics that were naturally selected in the survival of the human species over the span of millions of years.

Thus, there is a sense that patriarchy has a basis in human hard-wiring (sexual dimorphism), which was in turn naturally selected in human evolution allowing the species to reproduce and survive up until now.

HenceY, that this order has had "survival benefits" in the past is not really arguable as the dimorphism itself (which you concede patriarchy has its basis in) developed by the principle of biological survival in a species (natural selection).

First of all, there is a difference between something being hardwired, and something being based on something else that is hardwired.

So patriarchy is at least partially based on something that is hardwired (i.e. sexual dimorphism) but that does not mean that patriarchy is hardwired.

Secondly, you are assuming that sexual dimorphism has had survival benefits. This is not necessarily true. Sexual dimorphism could be correlated with other traits or behaviours that are beneficial, or sexual dimorphism could simply be a negative or neutral trait that we have yet to get rid of through natural selection.

If you only mean that we don't know if those survival benefits will continue into the future, well then there is no debate (we agree), but my point was that the changing of our roles to egalitarianism from patriarchy is not only less correspondent to our biology (which is true), but is also not based on human survival up until now which has been grounded in patriarchy and the evolutionarily selected dimorphism between the sexes.

Againm you are assuming that patriarchy and sexual dimorphism provide survival benefits, when this assumption may not be true.

At this point, it seems like a hypothesis, not a theory. I am using these terms in the scientific sense.

Hence, the advancement of egalitarian social roles can be claimed to:

1. has no basis in human biology (unlike patriarchy, as you conceded),

I am not sure that this is true. Egalitarianism probably does have some basis in our evolved morality.

This twin study seems to corroborate the idea that social justice is at least partly genetic:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 017-0297-y

Abstract
Studies of political attitudes and ideologies have sought to explain their origin. They have been assumed to be a result of political values ingrained during the process of socialization until early adulthood, as well as personal political experience, party affiliation, social strata, etc. As a consequence of these environment-dominated explanations, most biology-based accounts of political preference have never been considered. However, in the light of evidence accumulated in recent years, the view that political attitudes are detached from any physical properties became unsustainable. In this paper, we investigate the origins of social justice attitudes, with special focus on economic egalitarianism and its potential genetic basis. We use Minnesota Twin Study data from 2008, collected from samples of monozygotic and dizygotic twin pairs (n = 573) in order to estimate the additive genetic, shared environmental, and unique environmental components of social justice attitudes. Our results show that the large portion of the variance in a four-item economic egalitarianism scale can be attributed to genetic factor. At the same time, shared environment, as a socializing factor, has no significant effect. The effect of environment seems to be fully reserved for unique personal experience. Our findings further problematize a long-standing view that social justice attitudes are dominantly determined by socialization.

So, if there is a genetic component to support of egalitarianism, then it is possible that it also provided a survival benefit in our past, or still does.

and therefore;

2. lacks any basis for us to believe that it gives us a survival benefit given human evolutionary history (where the dimorphism behind patriarchy clearly did by getting us this far).

Again, you are assuming that sexual dimorphism and patriarchy provided survival benefits. As I already explained, this is not necessarily so.

As for the evolutionary benefits of egalitarianism:
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/35/14069

Abstract

The evolutionary emergence of the egalitarian syndrome is one of the most intriguing unsolved puzzles related to the origins of modern humans. Standard explanations and models for cooperation and altruism—reciprocity, kin and group selection, and punishment—are not directly applicable to the emergence of egalitarian behavior in hierarchically organized groups that characterized the social life of our ancestors. Here I study an evolutionary model of group-living individuals competing for resources and reproductive success. In the model, the differences in fighting abilities lead to the emergence of hierarchies where stronger individuals take away resources from weaker individuals and, as a result, have higher reproductive success. First, I show that the logic of within-group competition implies under rather general conditions that each individual benefits if the transfer of the resource from a weaker group member to a stronger one is prevented. This effect is especially strong in small groups. Then I demonstrate that this effect can result in the evolution of a particular, genetically controlled psychology causing individuals to interfere in a bully–victim conflict on the side of the victim. A necessary condition is a high efficiency of coalitions in conflicts against the bullies. The egalitarian drive leads to a dramatic reduction in within-group inequality. Simultaneously it creates the conditions for the emergence of inequity aversion, empathy, compassion, and egalitarian moral values via the internalization of behavioral rules imposed by natural selection. It also promotes widespread cooperation via coalition formation.

3. That egalitarianism (and secularism) is also correlated with low rates of reproduction only further strengthens this same case as being non-beneficial to the species, as the prime instinct that drives the survival of species is its will to breed and continue on. Egalitarianism has a disturbing lack of will in this regards.

This seems to be more associated with social conditions than genetics. The situation is more complicated than simply saying that educated feminist women have less kids, even though that is generally true.

I would be a soft-reductionist, not a hard-reductionist. Which I already stated earlier.

Pratically, I think the following statement is quite fair:

Women taking the role of child-bearer and rearer has some basis in sexual dimorphism; wearing pink instead of blue does not.

Examples could be multiplied.

Yes, it seems like we could place different gender roles on a spectrum from those that almost certainly have some basis in biology, to those that are obviously arbitrary or based on clear cultural (rather than biological) factors.

[Rich]

It should be noted that dimorphism is intrinsically opposed to monogamy. Christians have stupidly argued that God made equal numbers of men and women so everyone must be heterosexual monogamous. No God created equal parental investment in males and females to bring them to reproductive age. As males require significantly move resources than females from conception to reproductive age, God intended significantly more females than men to reach reproductive age as we see in all pre modern societies. This effect is exaggerated further by the later age of reproduction for men, requiring even more resources.

Males die at a faster rate right from conception. This is why there are more males at conception than females, because the early dying males reduce the average investment cost of a male. Christianity is a particularly cretinous religion, wanting to have its dimorphic cake and eat it, at least Judaism and Islam are consistent in their gross dimorphic exaggeration.

[Sivad]

[Victoribus Spolia]

First of all, there is a difference between something being hardwired, and something being based on something else that is hardwired.

So patriarchy is at least partially based on something that is hardwired (i.e. sexual dimorphism) but that does not mean that patriarchy is hardwired.

No disagreement.

Secondly, you are assuming that sexual dimorphism has had survival benefits. This is not necessarily true. Sexual dimorphism could be correlated with other traits or behaviours that are beneficial, or sexual dimorphism could simply be a negative or neutral trait that we have yet to get rid of through natural selection.

That it had surival benefits is demonstrated in two simple points that are compounding.

1. That they are major, not minor, human characteristics, as far as adapatability (especially when you consider the helplessness of our infants at birth, etc)

2. That given their significance biologically, that we have survived this far with them, indicates that such worked to preserve the species. This is the whole point in darwinist evolution, major biological traits exist in current species because they were naturally selected for survival. You could argue that they may not be useful in the future, but no one can knows that, but we do know what has gotten us this far, which is sexual dimorphism that serves as the basis for patriarchal roles which have been the primary roles for the majority of human societies for most of recorded human history.

I am not sure that this is true. Egalitarianism probably does have some basis in our evolved morality.

Not denying this, if you subscribe to evolutionary anthropology then almost any major social trait must be presumed to have a genetic basis, but egalitarianism is not reflected in our physiology, psychology, and reproductive development in the same manner as patriarchy is, especially as it relates to sexual dimorphism.

This is why certain evolutionary anthropologists, such as Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa (LSE), have speculated that egalitarian values (and likewise higher IQs) may be the result of evolutionary novel characteristics thriving under current conditions which are greatly removed from the African savannahs in which our primary evolutionary development took place.

This seems to be more associated with social conditions than genetics. The situation is more complicated than simply saying that educated feminist women have less kids, even though that is generally true.

No one is denying the complexity, but its ubiquity should give pause from the perspective of evolutionary analysis. Patriarchy can be correlated to something concrete in sexual dimorphism, but egalitarianism, even if evolutionary, lacks such a physical correlation and one must wonder why? Clearly patriarchal values perpetuate themselves through fecundity, but that egalitarianism tends to not do so may also explain why patriarchal tendencies emerged in the first place. Demographics are destiny, especially in the survival of the species.

Likewise, a good indicator, from an evolutionary perspective, of a trait's benefit can be seen its re-productivity.

People with patriarchal values (the extreme religious) have a much higher birth rate, so even now when egalitarianism is most externally manifested, that it is being selected out of the gene pool by low birth rates is a tell in itself. If a bird evolved a large beak, but that beak kept it from breeding, the beak cannot be said to be so great for the species even if it was more efficient at catching fish. It doesn't matter how efficient or good an emerging trait may be if it does replicate via reproduction.

Yes, it seems like we could place different gender roles on a spectrum from those that almost certainly have some basis in biology, to those that are obviously arbitrary or based on clear cultural (rather than biological) factors.

No disagreement.

[Pants-of-dog]

No disagreement.

That it had surival benefits is demonstrated in two simple points that are compounding.

1. That they are major, not minor, human characteristics, as far as adapatability (especially when you consider the helplessness of our infants at birth, etc)

2. That given their significance biologically, that we have survived this far with them, indicates that such worked to preserve the species. This is the whole point in darwinist evolution, major biological traits exist in current species because they were naturally selected for survival. You could argue that they may not be useful in the future, but no one can knows that, but we do know what has gotten us this far, which is sexual dimorphism that serves as the basis for patriarchal roles which have been the primary roles for the majority of human societies for most of recorded human history.

It seems like all you did here was come up with a new term: “major”, and define that as beneficial. Then you assumed that sexual dimorphism was “major”.

This is not evidence. This is wordplay. You are still making the same assumptions.

Is this whole “major/minor” thing an actual scientific phenomenon?

Not denying this, if you subscribe to evolutionary anthropology then almost any major social trait must be presumed to have a genetic basis, but egalitarianism is not reflected in our physiology, psychology, and reproductive development in the same manner as patriarchy is, especially as it relates to sexual dimorphism.

I have no idea what “being reflected in our physiology” means. It seems to mean that there is an obvious physical trait that seems related to a social construct like patriarchy or egalitarianism.

Whether or not there is a trait that we associate with patriarchy does not, in any way, mean that patriarchy is somehow more beneficial.

This is why certain evolutionary anthropologists, such as Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa (LSE), have speculated that egalitarian values (and likewise higher IQs) may be the result of evolutionary novel characteristics thriving under current conditions which are greatly removed from the African savannahs in which our primary evolutionary development took place.

Please link to the relevant paper.

I do not think that someone is correct simply because they are seen as an authority on the subject.

No one is denying the complexity, but its ubiquity should give pause from the perspective of evolutionary analysis. Patriarchy can be correlated to something concrete in sexual dimorphism, but egalitarianism, even if evolutionary, lacks such a physical correlation and one must wonder why? Clearly patriarchal values perpetuate themselves through fecundity, but that egalitarianism tends to not do so may also explain why patriarchal tendencies emerged in the first place. Demographics are destiny, especially in the survival of the species.

Likewise, a good indicator, from an evolutionary perspective, of a trait's benefit can be seen its re-productivity.

People with patriarchal values (the extreme religious) have a much higher birth rate, so even now when egalitarianism is most externally manifested, that it is being selected out of the gene pool by low birth rates is a tell in itself. If a bird evolved a large beak, but that beak kept it from breeding, the beak cannot be said to be so great for the species even if it was more efficient at catching fish. It doesn't matter how efficient or good an emerging trait may be if it does replicate via reproduction.

No disagreement.

How do you know that egalitarianism is not correlated with something concrete? This seems like a rather large assumption on your part.

And this birth rate thing is due to social conditions, not evolutionary ones. It is not relevant.

[Victoribus Spolia]

It seems like all you did here was come up with a new term: “major”, and define that as beneficial. Then you assumed that sexual dimorphism was “major”.

This is not evidence. This is wordplay. You are still making the same assumptions.

Is this whole “major/minor” thing an actual scientific phenomenon?

Are you claiming that the biological basis for egalitarianism is as physiologically prominent as sexual dimorphism?

If so, please provide evidence for that claim; otherwise, the major v. minor comparison is entirely warranted.

Whether or not there is a trait that we associate with patriarchy does not, in any way, mean that patriarchy is somehow more beneficial.

The fact that those physiological traits are not only prominent, but remained with us (proving that they aided in our survival thus far, following the principle of Darwinian evolution); is sufficient evidence that they are beneficial and is proven merely in fact that it has remained with us this long; furthermore, the correlation between patriarchal values (which you have admitted as having a basis in sexual dimorphism) and things like fecundity, intra-group cohesion, etc., are clearly further indicators of their positive contribution to the preservation of the species; however, egalitarianism is correlated with the opposite, and liberal values (like promoting non-reproductive lifestyles, gender reassignment etc) are likewise not beneficial to human preservation as its eliminates certain individuals from the gene pool.

Please link to the relevant paper.

I do not think that someone is correct simply because they are seen as an authority on the subject.

I have the book on Audible, but I will link the paperback version, he has written many articles on this topic, but this book is definitely the best and where I am getting my poitns. If this isn't good enough for you, thats too bad and I don't really care.

https://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Par ... i+kanazawa

How do you know that egalitarianism is not correlated with something concrete? This seems like a rather large assumption on your part.

And this birth rate thing is due to social conditions, not evolutionary ones. It is not relevant.

But patriarchy is a social condition that is connected (as you admitted) to a biological basis in sexual dimorphism. Patriarchy as a social condition follows the basic evolutionary "rules" of preserving the species, like reproduction. Egalitarianism (like patriarchy) produces certain social conditions, those social conditions exhibit less fecundity (among other things) which are evolutionarily beneficial for the species, thus if there is a concrete biological basis for egalitarianism, it is likely mal-adaptive and not beneficial given what social conditions are seen as correlative to egalitarian societies.

Feel free to prove to me otherwise.

[Pants-of-dog]

Are you claiming that the biological basis for egalitarianism is as physiologically prominent as sexual dimorphism?

If so, please provide evidence for that claim; otherwise, the major v. minor comparison is entirely warranted.

I am saying that this major/minor thing is just something you came up with and is not an actual biological thing.

Unless you can show ne that biologists actually use this distinction in a clear and consistent way and that this applies here, there is no reason for me to do waht you asked.

Instead, the burden of proof is on you to support your claim.

The fact that those physiological traits are not only prominent, but remained with us (proving that they aided in our survival thus far, following the principle of Darwinian evolution); is sufficient evidence that they are beneficial and is proven merely in fact that it has remained with us this long; furthermore, the correlation between patriarchal values (which you have admitted as having a basis in sexual dimorphism) and things like fecundity, intra-group cohesion, etc., are clearly further indicators of their positive contribution to the preservation of the species; however, egalitarianism is correlated with the opposite, and liberal values (like promoting non-reproductive lifestyles, gender reassignment etc) are likewise not beneficial to human preservation as its eliminates certain individuals from the gene pool.

No. It has already been explained to you several times that a trait is not necessarily beneficial just because it is still with us.

The fact that the trait is prominent also does not mean that the trait is beneficial.

I never discussed patriarchal values at all, and values are social constructs and are not relevant. This has also been explained to you already.

This enteie paragraph is just you repeating previous claims that have already been addressed.

I have the book on Audible, but I will link the paperback version, he has written many articles on this topic, but this book is definitely the best and where I am getting my poitns. If this isn't good enough for you, thats too bad and I don't really care.

https://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Par ... i+kanazawa

If you are not going to quote anything relevant, then I am not going to do your work for you.

And if you do not care about the debate, please stop replying to me.

But patriarchy is a social condition that is connected (as you admitted) to a biological basis in sexual dimorphism. Patriarchy as a social condition follows the basic evolutionary "rules" of preserving the species, like reproduction. Egalitarianism (like patriarchy) produces certain social conditions, those social conditions exhibit less fecundity (among other things) which are evolutionarily beneficial for the species, thus if there is a concrete biological basis for egalitarianism, it is likely mal-adaptive and not beneficial given what social conditions are seen as correlative to egalitarian societies.

Feel free to prove to me otherwise.

Patriarchy has nothing to do with preserving the species.

It is about social power and preserving social power. Having lots of kids is both a symbol of power and a method of attaing and preserving social power. Population increases because of these values is a side effect.

I have already provided evidence for the concrete biological basis for egalitarianism, which stated that it is beneficial given certain social conditions.

I suggest rereading it and then addressing it.