3 ms·
Edit: New accounts cannot reply so I rewrote my comment I'm talking about equality in terms of attributes. The distribution of traits in males and the distribu
by throwerway 9y ago
Edit: New accounts cannot reply so I rewrote my comment
I'm talking about equality in terms of attributes. The distribution of traits in males and the distribution of traits in females, are not equal. So I will not say males and females are equal. They do qualify as equivalent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_relation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_relation
I believe people should be treated as individuals, if you take two distinct persons A and B, I don't believe they are equal. The only person equal to person A is person A. On this vein, you can't say Group A is equal to Group B, unless Group A and B are the same group.
You can apply equivalence relations to groups, which is basically a lower threshold for equality.
- didgeoridoo 9y agoI'm not sure where "equivalent" came from, and haven't really heard it used in this context before. What do you mean by that? Anyway, I think you've got it backwards. "Equivalent" suggests that men and women are functionally interchangeable, which neither of us believes. "Equal", on the other hand, has a long history of being used to carry social and political meaning.