“supposed” is a bit of a tricky word for biology anyway, given that it implies intent. I guess if one is religious it works, but otherwise, itd be ascribing thought to evolutionary processes that dont seem to have a mechanism for that.
There is a certain degree of genetics and environmental adaptation here as well. Not all ethnic groups share similar body hair genes. It doesnt even seen to correlate to something like melanin production and higher/lower latitudes since body hair across Africa varies wildliy.
Of course - what I’m saying is that there’s huge variation within humans. Some ethnic groups simply don’t grow as much body hair, or it’s not nearly as course or pronounced. My partner can go weeks without shaving her legs and it’s almost impossible to tell. Many East Asian ethnic groups have far less hair than Europeans or Levant peoples. People in West Africa have relatively little body hair, while I’ve seen women with full on beards and chest hair in southern African countries.
If this conversation is between a Maori or Norwegian kid and a Bulgarian or Spanish or Armenian babysitter, that’s a stark contrast that actually would be plausible without the reality of unreasonable beauty standards ruining everyone’s day.
That variation also means that the “logic” of comparing leg hair to cancer makes as much sense as comparing leg hair to my nipples. They don’t do anything either, but XY bodies still get them. And I would bet $10 that any kid young enough to be baby-sat and say that grows up to get lip filler and joker-esque work done by the age of 28.
Depends on the mammal I guess, but sure. But, theres a difference between something being what typically happens, and what is supposed to happen. Were you somehow in charge of designing mammals, and decided that hair should be a crucial aspect of them, then you could say that they are supposed to have hair. But, absent anyone doing this, them having hair is simply how they happen to be and equally as unintended as them not having it, regardless of how overwhelming the percentage that has it is. If anything, one could argue that if a person shaves their hair, or decides not while being given the option, then that person has actively taken charge of designing their own appearance, at least in that regard, and therefore the way they are “supposed” to look is the way they intend to make themselves look.
I wouldn’t know if like naked mole rats or Sphinx cats or whatever are truly hairless or not, but tbh it doesn’t really matter for what I was trying to say.
See, you keep trying to make this about gender. It’s not. That’s what you seem to be too thick to understand. The topic is no longer about if women should have hairy legs or not, that’s a completely moot point. It’s about the logical fallacy of trying to argue something by saying “well if x shouldn’t exist, then why is it there?”, which is just bad logic.
That has literally nothing to do with gender anymore. No one here gives a shit if women shave or not, dumbass; it’s just the initial topic that triggered the fallacy which we are now discussing. It’s pretty fucking obvious, but that seems to have gone entirely over your head; again, because you have the critical thinking skills of a rock.
He’s not comparing hair to cancer, he is demonstrating that just because something grows doesn’t mean it’s supposed to be there.
Let’s watch sonic hedgehog
deleted by creator
Nobody is supposed to have body hair.
“supposed” is a bit of a tricky word for biology anyway, given that it implies intent. I guess if one is religious it works, but otherwise, itd be ascribing thought to evolutionary processes that dont seem to have a mechanism for that.
deleted by creator
There is a certain degree of genetics and environmental adaptation here as well. Not all ethnic groups share similar body hair genes. It doesnt even seen to correlate to something like melanin production and higher/lower latitudes since body hair across Africa varies wildliy.
deleted by creator
Of course - what I’m saying is that there’s huge variation within humans. Some ethnic groups simply don’t grow as much body hair, or it’s not nearly as course or pronounced. My partner can go weeks without shaving her legs and it’s almost impossible to tell. Many East Asian ethnic groups have far less hair than Europeans or Levant peoples. People in West Africa have relatively little body hair, while I’ve seen women with full on beards and chest hair in southern African countries.
If this conversation is between a Maori or Norwegian kid and a Bulgarian or Spanish or Armenian babysitter, that’s a stark contrast that actually would be plausible without the reality of unreasonable beauty standards ruining everyone’s day.
That variation also means that the “logic” of comparing leg hair to cancer makes as much sense as comparing leg hair to my nipples. They don’t do anything either, but XY bodies still get them. And I would bet $10 that any kid young enough to be baby-sat and say that grows up to get lip filler and joker-esque work done by the age of 28.
deleted by creator
Depends on the mammal I guess, but sure. But, theres a difference between something being what typically happens, and what is supposed to happen. Were you somehow in charge of designing mammals, and decided that hair should be a crucial aspect of them, then you could say that they are supposed to have hair. But, absent anyone doing this, them having hair is simply how they happen to be and equally as unintended as them not having it, regardless of how overwhelming the percentage that has it is. If anything, one could argue that if a person shaves their hair, or decides not while being given the option, then that person has actively taken charge of designing their own appearance, at least in that regard, and therefore the way they are “supposed” to look is the way they intend to make themselves look.
I don’t believe there are any truly hairless mammals?
I wouldn’t know if like naked mole rats or Sphinx cats or whatever are truly hairless or not, but tbh it doesn’t really matter for what I was trying to say.
I have never seen a dolphin, dugong or whale with hair
deleted by creator
No. There’s plenty of mammals without hair.
deleted by creator
Says who? Your god?
deleted by creator
Incorrect
deleted by creator
Then explain whales and dolphins
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
This comment thread is really revealing how many people here have the critical thinking skills of a rock.
deleted by creator
See, you keep trying to make this about gender. It’s not. That’s what you seem to be too thick to understand. The topic is no longer about if women should have hairy legs or not, that’s a completely moot point. It’s about the logical fallacy of trying to argue something by saying “well if x shouldn’t exist, then why is it there?”, which is just bad logic.
That has literally nothing to do with gender anymore. No one here gives a shit if women shave or not, dumbass; it’s just the initial topic that triggered the fallacy which we are now discussing. It’s pretty fucking obvious, but that seems to have gone entirely over your head; again, because you have the critical thinking skills of a rock.
deleted by creator
He didn’t say otherwise, just pointed out the argument used was poor.
deleted by creator
Again, who are you to say that? I could make the exact opposite argument and you would have to obey because I said so.
deleted by creator
It’s not a comparison except in logic, where it is a perfect comparison.
Who’s to say cancer isn’t supposed to grow?
How do we know women hair isn’t just cancer? 🤔
deleted by creator