One is not "better" than the other.
They were created for different roles, where likewise, one role is not better than the other, for it takes both, neither can do without the other.
Precisely, and vive la difference.
Indeed for me the most chilling thing about the LGBTQ+ movement is the attempt to normalize and fetishize androgyny, as if to say those with the misfortune of being born neither definitely male nor female, and usually infertile as a result (I’ve also never heard of a hermaphrodite who was fertile with respect to both anatomical points of reference), should now be regarded as an aspirational standard of beauty (see the recent Jaguar commercial).
Its almost as if they’ve realized that (a) legalizing homosexuality has not slowed the birthrate fast enough (b) trumpeting black homosexuality when it happens, where due to social conservativism it is less common, also hasn’t worked so (c) they’re creating a scenario wherein teachers in public schools are now, in states like California, absolutely in a position to suggest to minor children that they are suffering from “gender dysphoria” on the basis of what might be any casual question a child might ask as they seek to understand reproduction, or none at all, the solution to which is hormone treatments and eventually surgery which will cause them to resemble the other gender, while also rendering them sterile.
In the past, women who were deemed mentally inadequate or otherwise undesirable were routinely sterilized thanks to the Eugenics movement; since that’s no longer lawful (fortunately, because many of the women in question were quite competent and would have made loving mothers, but this was denied to them against their will) the same tyrannical left wing mind that drove eugenics but which has since rebranded (and tried to associate eugenics and other past left wing mistakes with conservative ideology, a classic move, one might call it projection were it not so transparently intentional), they now target children, in whom they can plant the idea that losing one‘s fertility in a bid to cure a mental illness which is being implanted by way of gaslighting and suggestion (since it is possible to attack the stability of the human mind, and has been historically done, in military and espionage and even commercial circles for various reasons), is desirable, and even luxurious, a fashion statement and a way of sticking it to the Man.
When in this case the Man is basically the orchestrator of the entire left wing pyscho-sexual drive behind this.
I am not a sexist; I believe women should have the right to vote, to own and operate vehicles, to wear the clothing they desired, and all added privileges traditionally afforded under the Christian idea of chivalry; women are not only entitled to basic human rights but to some degree of special treatment on account of the difference between themselves and men, for example, the privilege of having doors opened for them, and of having seats yielded to them on public transport, and of having larger restrooms, and so on. This is right and proper and natural. The horror is men using the idea of sexual liberation and the LGBTQ+ movement to deprive women of their proper rights, and to invade, with the approval of the political elite, in a perverse manner, the sacred spaces we have carved for women, by competing with women in women’s sports, using female-designated public restrooms, and so on, and this, combined with the aforementioned idealization of those who are born eunuchs, of androgyny, is entirely horrific.
There is a difference and the difference is sacred, because it is the difference between men and women that literally enables life itself, which I believe is the target, since I think what is really driving this is the concern of certain ancient men like Warren Buffet and George Soros and the money that will follow their lead beyond the grave, through the work of those slightly younger men like Bill Gates who operate in their thrall, about the issue of overpopulation, which in turn was imprinted upon them in their youth by the Eugenics movement and its popularity in mass media at the time, which was so widespead and so common, if one looks at literary science fiction for example, I can think of only one science fiction story written before 1970 which expressed concern about the idea of overpopulation itself being dangerous, that being the Marching Morons, by CM Kornbluth, which depicted a futre dystopia resulting from the intelligentsia having adopted birth control (which itself was based on a very Eugenics idea, the concept that intelligence is purely hereditary and is something that would instantly disappear under such conditions, actually if that were the case, the state depicted in The Marching Morons and what I suspect was an uncredited adaptation of it, Idiocracy, would already exist now since the elite of society have been permitting themselves to be outbred since the 1950s and the only affect that has been has been a demographic change in the ownership of pharmacies, but now even the first generation of Asian pharmacists has been retired for some time, and actually finding a good independent pharmacy has become impossible in some parts of the US sadly, forcing people to contend with the likes of CVS and Walgreens, and even Walgreens has been doing poorly; everyone admired the CEO in the 1990s for shedding the restaurant and other service businesses to focus purely on the pharmacy chain owned by the Walgreen family but that now appears to have been a mistake).
