I don’t know. In something of a reversal, the older I get, the more I ‘m open to thinking that there are gender roles and that much of what is attributed to ‘social conditioning’ and ‘social constructs’ is actually just the design of the species, and more hardwired into the basic design than permitted to acknowledge - even as, at some level, everyone knows it save the indoctrinated.
In that, to accept gender as a replacement for sex is to enter the circle, and to accept ‘gender less’ as the precondition on which such discussions are platformed is a lie - and an obvious one at that. While it’s positioned along feminist lines as an attack on the masculine, its longer term more permanent downstream effects will be the savaging of the feminine. (Men on women’s sports teams as a leading edge.)
Along Aristotelian lines, the herd knows what it knows, and it doesn’t have to justify itself based on contrived rational arguments. The new alpha male lion doesn't have to explain why it kills the cubs of the old alpha, it just does.
From a political warfare POV, for example, recognizing the pure dialectical play that demands the ‘negation of the negation’, was the “Me Too” LOO about ‘empowering’ women or is it transitioning feminism from antithesis to thesis in preparation to negate it?
If the stated objective of feminism is the destruction of the family, and it is, doesn’t it become increasingly obvious that “Me Too’, SEL (Social Emotional Learning), ‘Ethical Non-Monogamy’ (aka ‘Open Marriage’), ‘Evolved Relationships’, and other associated Intersectional LOAs (all intensely Becoming) simply set the conditions for the masculine, at the collective herd level of involuntary thought, to just walk away from committed relationships because the collective feminine, agency deprived under the control of feminist active measures, make such relationships genuinely not worth pursuing? (Why are nightclubs closing?)
Stated more classically, has the intersectional feminist LOE been so successful at pushing the feminine into the domain of Becoming, that like Eve, they can never be satisfied even when what they have is pretty good (Eve in Paradise), that the collective masculine in Being simply, but genuinely, lose interest and just walk away?
Wouldn’t this be the culminating success of the feminist objective: the destruction of the family. But if true, and from a political warfare POV, it's a giant red star cluster, wouldn't that make the MGTOW, Manosphere etc an extension of the the Feminist active measure that reflects the beginning of the negation of the negation?
If there is anything to this, why would men in Being engage in pointless arguments with women trapped in a circle of Becoming, and therefore out of reach, when they can just sit back and watch it play out, like it already is?
To fight women in Becoming demands one enter the circle of Becoming. But if grounded in Being, why do that?