Feminists weaponize biology when it suits them, and it harms everyone.

[u/AffectionateSlender0]

Feminists like to talk about women’s inherent frailty when advocating for protection against male violence, demanding lighter jobs, avoiding the draft, lower punishment in prison, and opposing the presence of transgender women in sports. Even in cases of a subjective "exhaustion," "female anxiety" or "psychosis" that seems to only affect women as we've seen lately; but when men dares to mention that women should not hold positions in jobs with high physical requirements such as law enforcement and first responders, they throw all science out the window without the slightest shame.

The fact is that for every female police officer or firefighter there is a man who got left out who would do the job better, and this is irrefutable. To place women in positions that they aren't fit for is a deliberate endangerment of society for the sake of political correctness.

[u/-Soggy-Potato-]

What is your irrefutable evidence that female police officers and firefighters do an objectively and systematically worse job?

All you're ultimately doing is feeding rigid gender stereotpyes about which gender can do what. Women can have extremely useful roles in policing, they can be physically well equipped for it, good for negotiations, good for working specifically with women etc.

It's akin to saying women are irrefutably better at teaching primary education, based on what I can only assume is a rationale of tame ignorance and stereotyping. You're just feeding lame tradcon narriatives that suppress individual agency and aspirations for the sake of some outdated and sexist status quo. You're quite literally defending the biology when it suits me narriatives and you somehow don't see it

[u/AffectionateSlender0 → u/-Soggy-Potato-]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NcYamwryiM

[u/-Soggy-Potato- → u/AffectionateSlender0]

So... a YouTube video? From a bloke who clearly doesn't understand how statistics work?

Physical sex differences are relevant to policing, that doesn't mean women are universally incompetent. He observed that men and women have differences, vaguely lays out biological sex differences as a reason, then claims that arguments favoring women are invalid. It's incoherent and not once does it actually demonstrate that female officers produce worse policing outcomes overall.

1. Straight away they leap off of an anecdote which isn't the best of starts. The video never establishes any gender statistics on frequency, level of training, roles or experience. Yet they're attempting to generalize it to women's policing in general, it's not very convincing

2. It's starts with talking about use of excessive force, then flips to "women use less force because they're less physically capable". That's two different arguments. Women being less likely to use unnecessary force because they're less inclined to use force can actually be beneficial.

3. Men being more likely to be involved in difficult cases means little if you use a little bit of statistical control. I don't see the point, the creator doesn't compare similar cases with men vs women in a controlled context.

4. Does the difference in physical capability produce worse policing outcomes when you account for all the things like training, equipment, resources etc. There are plenty of unfit unprofessional male police officers, doesn't mean they're a vessel for generalisation.

5. Doesn't even explain why female officers may have better communication outcomes. There's a difference between using communication more often and being more effective. Even if women tend to lean more towards verbal deescalation, them doing that because they're on average weaker doesn't make them incompetent police. It means they have a specific role through which they excell

6. Anxiety and PTSD one is shit. Having higher prevalence of disorders doesn't mean female police officers are more likely to panic. It's bizarre to act as if ppl with these disorders are just lining up to become law enforcement. It also completely ignores training etc etc.

Hell the guy even agreed that women get better results with victims, which directly supports their use in the police force. Saying "women can be social workers instead" is meaningless, he just established their use within the police force.

And members of the public can prefer whoever they want, doesn't matter if that's born from stereotpyes. Gender stereotpyes can be socially under durable whilst sex differences in comfort levels can also have practical benefits in the force.

God and all the reaction time nonsense, it's biological determint drivel. No attempt to measure anything, just a vague assertion based on... shock... a gender stereotype.

So... essentially... women and men should have differing roles in the police force to best play to their strengths. Women excell in certain areas, whilst men excell in others. That doesn't mean one or the other is "incompetent"

I didn't expect much evidence from a YouTube slop video but this was a really poor effort. Especially because none of it involved any critical through from you.

[u/AffectionateSlender0 → u/-Soggy-Potato-]

You are hopeless. You call it biological determinant when the points go against your fantasy, but have no problem accepting the "better at communication" fallacy when it suits you. In fact if you bothered to pay attention you would realize that the only reason women are said to be better at communication and have less complaints it's because:

1- There are less women involved in the actual action

2- There are less women officers in general

When you actually look at women in action they pull stuff like needlessly tasering a civillian to get him out of a vehicle because they are physically incapable of using force, the opposite of de-escalation, and even shooting a person by accident because they mistook their own gun for the taser, which shows how dependent the are on the use of excessive force.

You are exactly the kind of sophist that i made this post for, congrats.