>>40711405
Then the term male and female would be meaningless. If males are a subset of females, then they are the same group. But they are not, which is why we have the distinction.

Secondly, the idea that males are modified females is an old feminist idea, the idea that men are genetically disabled females.

It is true that all humans, and presumably sexually reproducing animals, vertebrates at least, do begin life anatomically more similar than they become. This does not however make them all females. They do start with prenatal tissues that differentiate depending upon the presence (or absence) of testosterone and other androgens at certain stages. The tissue that becomes the labia also can become the scrotum, etc.

But you cant claim that cake and batter are the same thing because they both come from the same ingredients. The process matter.

The "flaws" that men find in females are actually necessary features, including the irrationality necessary for pro-social preference and bonding. A species of total rationality would be constantly fighting for the self. They would not be social because there would be no reason. And they would not breed because men would be competing with females instead of being forced to cooperate with them.

Ive written about this before. In my view, females are more accurately a mammal product like eggshells are an ornithid product. The material for a viable member of the species is deprived the hormone development need to make it viable in the environment.

A female hominid in the wild does not survive the elements. It does not obtain food or shelter nor can defend it without a man. So what you end up with is something like a deformed child that is easy to sex because it is smaller and has a short usefulness in life but remains essential, and cared for like a child itself. Essentially, a walking eggshell with a vestigial nervous system and limbs that can at least move towards food and shelter as long as a man provides it for them.