For there betterment and clarity i said the possibilities but I forgot the love fades and gets dull too

Im agitated 🙌😬

Our whole discussion was basically one question stretched across different layers: is biology destiny or description?

We started with Beauvoir.

You asked - is calling socially imposed gender roles wrong as per biology?

I said Beauvoir doesn't deny biology. In Second Sex she has a whole biology chapter. Her point is: Biology exists, but it is not destiny. Body differences are real - reproduction, hormones, strength averages. But society takes that descriptive fact and makes it prescriptive - "therefore you must stay home, you must provide". That leap from fact to duty is what she calls imposition.

You said - can't impose everything but many things are related to biology only.

I agreed. Biology is the starting condition. Motherhood, periods, lactation, average strength differences do shape experience. Problem is not that society notices them, problem is when society says ONLY this. So biology explains something, not everything.

Then you brought the mother = caretaker argument.

You said woman is mother so it's obvious she must be caretaker, not imposing.

I distinguished: woman can mother, so mothering needs caretaking - that's a biological link. Woman is mother, so ALL women MUST be caretaker of house only - that's essence before existence. Ability to compulsion is where imposition happens. Not all women become mothers, not all mothers caretaker same way. If we lock women as caretakers, we also lock men as providers. Both lose freedom.

You said respective biology has respective attributes and those attributes are related to respective lock-ins.

I said yes, that's essentialism and historically it was functional. Division of labor came from biology because it was efficient for survival. So lock-ins were not random. But Hume's Is-Ought problem comes here: from "women can bear children" you can describe biology, but you cannot logically derive "therefore women must only do caretaking". That must is a value society adds. Attribute = what you can do easily. Lock-in = what you must do only.

You said those who don't obey their traits and responsibilities are doing wrong.

I said that's where existentialism splits from essentialism. For you, trait = duty, so deviation = wrong. For Sartre/Beauvoir, if you make biology = moral law, you lose freedom. A woman who doesn't want to be mother, or a man who wants to be primary caretaker, is not violating biology, he is exercising existence over essence.

You said none of nature's attributes fulfill human expectations, that doesn't mean you should go against general framework. Imposing is like pre-training respective genders because it's a general trend.

I framed that as descriptive efficiency vs prescriptive wrongness. Yes, training genders on general trends is efficient and stable. But efficiency = morality? Does going against trend make someone morally wrong or just statistically exceptional? Modern philosophy says treat trend as default, not as compulsory moral law. Default breaker is exception, not wrong.

Then you gave the guns vs swords war analogy.

You said in war of guns if someone picks sword, maybe he is master or ninja but more prone to defeat and vanish, so calling him wrong is justified.

I translated that into two ethics:

1. Your framework - collective functionalism: Nature made trends for species survival. Breaking them risks society, so wrong.
2. Beauvoir framework - individual existentialism: Life is not only war. In peace you can afford sword masters. Freedom to choose your battle is authentic.

You said maybe you have life before and after war but in war what is dominating is obviously gun, they can pick sword but because of your dumbness you can't risk your kingdom.

I said exactly, that's your strongest point. When situation is survival mode, collective logic dominates. Existential freedom gets suspended for necessity. Beauvoir was writing for peacetime. In peacetime why still treat life like war and force gun on everyone? So your kingdom logic holds when survival is on line, her freedom logic holds when survival is secured.

You said at peacetime also we have risks as per your framework.

I agreed. You see peacetime not as zero risk but low intensity risk, so keeping biological framework as default reduces long term risks like family breakdown, demographic fall.

You concluded - well I believe its preference but nature wants it as duty! And we are beings of nature.

I said that's the cleanest summary. For us it's preference, for nature it's duty, and since we come from nature we feel we should honor its duty. Conflict is nature thinks in efficiency, human consciousness thinks in freedom. We are beings of nature, but also beings who can question nature, so both voices live inside us.

Final synthesis:

Your position is coherent essentialist, functionalist, collective survival view. Biology gave a general efficient script, pre-training on it reduces risk, deviation increases collective risk, so deviation should be called wrong.

Beauvoir's position is coherent existentialist, individual freedom view. Biology gave facts, society added extra moral layers, calling deviation wrong turns a statistical tendency into a compulsory essence, which removes choice.

We both agreed biology matters, overlap is huge but averages differ, history made lock-ins for efficiency. Disagreement is only on the word "wrong" - is the person who deviates immoral, or just inefficient/exceptional?

That is the is-ought gap that philosophy never fully closes.

Feminism 🙌🤌

Pray for me goizz