No. I think it's dehumanizing to categorize people like this. People are unique individuals, and when you categorize and label and put them into easy boxes, you stop seeing them that way.
It's the same as "jock"
This is what I mean, when you define a person so superficially, you stop seeing them as an individual human being. I get the feeling that since you're posting here, the “jock” was the “other” in your life, but it applies in reverse too.
bits you foreground in order to engage in this signalling
My point was these charades are often regressive sexist things that feminism made progress against last century. It's easy to see why some people are offended by the idea that wearing make-up and a dress means one should now be treated differently. Those things aren't what define a woman, and a woman isn't less of a woman for not doing those things.
Good luck trying to get pack-critters to stop being pack-critters
This is what I mean, when you define a person so superficially, you stop seeing them as an individual human being. I get the feeling that since you're posting here, the “jock” was the “other” in your life, but it applies in reverse too.
My point was these charades are often regressive sexist things that feminism made progress against last century. It's easy to see why some people are offended by the idea that wearing make-up and a dress means one should now be treated differently. Those things aren't what define a woman, and a woman isn't less of a woman for not doing those things.
With respect, that wasn't my point at all.
>>30 Je sais.