Do you think biological realities playing into heterosexuality is a topic that leftists/feminists are ready to discuss?

Corbast7 · 2026-05-09T14:06:09+00:00

Pregnancy, motherhood, and all their consequences on women (both biologically and socially) have always been a big topic in feminism, including up to now. I’ve been even saying this stuff all the time here to the men who think women are more cautious/selective for seemingly “no reason” other than that women are greedy “hypergamous” whores and that men are purely victims in dating, lol.

I think this is a strange question to ask.

Flightlessbirbz · 2026-05-09T14:10:57+00:00

Your quote sounds like it came straight from a feminist source. Feminists talk about these issues all the time. Feminists also delve into issues relating to how men and women are socialized differently and the issues this leads to, but that isn’t exclusive from talking about biological differences. It’s both, not either/or. There also are many different types of feminists who don’t necessarily focus on the same things or even agree with each other.

prettywords_ · 2026-05-09T13:56:23+00:00

Women being weaker and more vulnerable and having to deal with pregnancy and therefore being selective is talked about nonstop in feminist circles.

pie-mart · 2026-05-09T13:58:02+00:00

Um, I mean feminists talk about this a lot. Hence why dating is so unequal for women. And some men don't like doing the things that equalize the playing field, and see us having any power as us having power over them.

If no one is forcing you to do something, through physical force or coercion, you are the more powerful one. God forbid we women have the slight power of being the pursued and the selector

But even then, some men want to still be the ones who impregnate (vs being impregnate), the physically stronger ones, the ones who gain more from sex with the opposite sex, AND they want to be the ones pursued and desired.

They want the benefits of women while having none of the drawbacks and keeping all the benefits of being a man

Tylikcat · 2026-05-09T16:51:37+00:00

"Sperm is cheap, eggs are not."

I've heard this phrasing from other people in a biological context*, and while there's some truth in it - sperm are generated and wasted by the millions - I think it also misses some of the most important parts. After all, most of us waste one egg a month for most of our lives, and it suggests some biological equivalence between our contribution of sperm and eggs, even if the one is made in far greater numbers. And, of course, that's the part where our contributions of genetic material are most equivalent.

What's really expensive is pregnancy. And that's something where there isn't a male equivalent at all. The vast amount of energy and physical stress that goes into making a new person is borne exclusively by women.

This is somewhat nitpicking in terms of what you are talking about, but its kind of on point, too. There's been a social tendency to cast pregnancy as not that big a deal (this came up in the Dobbs decision, where having to go through pregnancy was cast as a minor inconvenience). And yet, this really just seems to be another area where women's labor is largely ignored and invisible.

*And while I'm CS prof, my PhD is in biology. (I was always a computational biologist, and then I got more heavily into robotics... then I started teaching programming because I didn't like how it was being taught, and then my job opened up around the time I really wanted to return to the west coast, and here I am.)

AchingAmy · 2026-05-09T15:09:20+00:00

Hmm, I might guess that you think this doesn't occur because a lot of leftists support trans rights so you think they deny any biological realities? I'm otherwise not sure why you think feminists and leftists don't already discuss this. We definitely do. It was the topic of my feminist political theory class and other classes I've had.

Also, if that is your assumption that the support of trans rights makes you think they don't discuss this, well, I probably confuse you I guess since I'm a trans woman and radical feminist who recognizes this? Lol

But beyond what you said, I'm convinced that being testosterone-dominant heavily contributes to male behavior. While patriarchy does a lot to encourage those behaviors by the way it socializes men, I think a lot of other feminists miss the mark on their analysis to say it's only that. After all, patriarchy came from somewhere. What contributed to the male behaviors that made them create patriarchy to begin with? It generally is agreed upon patriarchy rose around the same time as agriculture did, as this enabled groups to be able to accumulate and control resources and deny access to them to others which they couldn't do in hunter-gatherer times which was a lot of more gender egalitarian. When anyone could live off nature and food was dependent upon location and frequently changed, it's difficult to control them. Once food collection became a lot more stationary on farms and whatnot, and it increased in productivity, it became possible to control it and accumulate resources through threat of violence.

Men decided to take advantage of that to subordinate women. And why would they act this way while women did not? There's research to suggest that testosterone causes increased status-seeking behaviors, and I think that might partially explain why men wanted to be higher status, such as higher up in the hierarchy of patriarchy, while keeping women down.

There are also other behaviors I think testosterone can be responsible for, like men having more sex partners because testosterone provides a more consistent and high libido. And obviously testosterone increases strength. I noticed behavioral changes in myself once I got onto estrogen and suppress my testosterone. I got physically weaker and, I think, as a result I became more cautious with men. Especially since they started expressing sexual/romantic interest in me and began approaching me or catcalling me. And, ofc, I noticed changes in my libido, mostly that it wasn't consistent or as strong as before.

Idk why some people would deny those biological realities tbh. Even us trans people when given informed consent about HRT, are told what will happen when going onto estrogen or testosterone in the case of transmascs. Transfems are told we will have a decline in libido and a decline in muscle mass. Transmascs are told the opposite because this stuff is very well-studied about the sex hormones. Though, we aren't told what behavioral changes might occur(other than relief of gender dysphoria) but I do think maybe we should be told those other behavioral changes too.

howdoiw0rkthisthing · 2026-05-09T15:44:03+00:00

I think the kind of people you’re describing have insulated themselves from opposing viewpoints so well that they never even encounter that statement.

toad-wrangler · 2026-05-09T15:56:50+00:00

Do you have any experience seeing feminists/progressives/academic gender studies folks/lgbtq+ people reacting to statements like this?

Yes. I've never met someone irl that thinks people don't have specific experiences related to sex, gender, and genitalia.

Or them talking about this in their own spaces?

I'm not quite sure what this means irl. I have talked with people in spaces that were largely public.

What do you see?

I see people have different opinions of the need for rigidity in things like sexuality and gender roles. The specific experiences we have related to genitalia is not something I've heard people debate much irl, but I've heard it discussed some. It's mostly straight forward until you introduce nuanced context factors like culture or upbringing.

Do you think this statement would count as the dreaded "gender essentialism"?

I think is can be, but is incomplete. Gender essentialism includes gender as a binary. There can be specific experiences based on genitalia, and the gender of the individual can provide nuanced context for their experiences. Most people identify as cis/het, or their gender alines with their genitalia and they are heterosexual. So the majority of men and women are going to have similar contexts and experiences relative to their sex. But there are people who have sexualities and gender identities that are different, and thus there is variety.

Do you think ppd is unique at all?

It's not something I run into irl, but it's hard for me to believe it's terribly unique in terms of online spaces.

KayRay1994 · 2026-05-09T16:19:06+00:00

I mean the statement itself is true, problem is though this is used as a jumping off point to gender essentialism. Like you (to be clear not you literally, ‘you’ as in the average gender essentialist) will start with a statement like this and then say something like “and therefore this is why hypergamy is real”, “this is why men are disgusted with women with high body counts” or “this is chad succeeds” into far more misogynistic stuff.

There are absolutely biological realities, but also they play a smaller role than gender essentialists and evo psych enthusiasts think

selfishstars · 2026-05-10T16:43:34+00:00

Yes, leftists and feminists discuss this stuff, we just understand the nuances better than conservatives, redpillers, etc. tend to. We are nuanced because a) we have learned that gender essentialism/biological determinism are oversimplified and incorrect, and b) gender essentialism/biological determinism have been used throughout history to oppress women, BIPOC people, LGBT+ people, disabled people, and working-class people. There are some different tendencies between men and women on average, but traditional gender roles have been forced on us. We don’t fit neatly into two boxes.

For example, due to the differences in parental investment, the male survival and reproductive strategy is based in individualism, competition, domination, status, hoarding resources, and having multiple mates. The female survival and reproductive strategy is based in collectivism, community, care, sharing, cooperation, group cohesion, and long-term planning. But these are just tendencies. The reality is that we are all have the capacity for these strategies, but socialization into traditional gender roles condition us in different ways.

Also, if you want to talk about biology and evolution, you can’t ignore anthropology, sociology, history, etc. For most of human history, we did not live under patriarchy. While there was some sex-based division of labour, it wasn’t a strict binary, it was flexible. Patriarchy arose during the agricultural revolution. Cultivating plants and domesticating animals led to settlements, surplus, private property, and inheritance systems. Men wanted to ensure that their heirs were their own, and so they went about it by oppressing women. Controlling women’s movement, bodies, behaviour, and reproduction. Obviously it makes more sense for a society to be matrilineal because women know who their children are.

Under patriarchy, women were, to varying degrees, treated as property. Family-controlled marriage was common for most of human history.

Capitalism arose out of patriarchy and so it had male (and white) supremacy baked in. Boys and men are conditioned to be individualistic, competitive, and dominant. Capitalism creates artificial scarcity so that it can exploit men’s waged labour with a promise of status, resources, and access to women as their reward. But the female survival and reproductive strategy is suppressed or controlled.
One aspect of capitalism is that communities are built around capital, rather than human well-being.
The nuclear family is a recent invention that is used to isolate women and children. Because reproduction carries substantial cost and risk to women, it is better for her to live close to her own family. Humans evolved to alloparent. We also evolved to live in smaller/close communities so that we actually get to know the people who live around us and can do a better job at selecting an appropriate partner and have the support of the community.
When women are forced to be economically dependent on men (in other words, rely on men for their survival), they have less autonomy when it comes to selecting a a partner, and less ability to leave if their partner is abusive. In the US, homocide is one of the leading causes of death for pregnant and postpartum women (most often committed by her current or former partner). Leaving an abusive partner is also a high-risk period of time for women.
So men may be more inclined, on average, to pursue… but saying “this paints the entire heterosexual dating game” is a stretch, since what that looks like and how it functions is socially/culturally constructed.

AutoModerator · 2026-05-09T13:52:40+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Appropriate_Cow1378 · 2026-05-09T21:09:34+00:00

I think we've been discussing biological reality for decades. The issue comes where the manosphere label women as "naturally" scheming, dishonest, incapable of true bonding, etc. There's also a lot of use of unfounded science used to push biological essentialist views. Like that women's ability to "pairbond" is damaged by casual sex (but not men) so only virgins will have the capacity for strong romantic bonds with their partner.

There's also the fact some things can be "natural" and yet better to resist or challenge, as part of living in a civilized society. I think both liberal groups and the manosphere/redpill uses the appeal to nature to justify why things should be a certain way. Using your example, I've seen men argue that because sex is a "pursuer-pursued dynamic" that rape and sexual assaults are natural, expected outcome. And they ARE. Rape as we understand it occurs between animals all the time. But obviously, it's not productive to a functional, healthy society. There are species that will assault the young of other species, dead bodies, their family members. How things work naturally shouldn't be our moral guide but a frame of reference for understanding the world around us.

In a healthy society, I would hope that the understanding of a "pursuer-pursued dynamic" would motivate us to reinforce strong familial and platonic bonds for men, because right now, a lot of men's only source of social warmth is sexual and romantic. Most males in nature don't ever reproduce, so we need to bring emotional value to men's lives that's not dependent on that!

-Shes-A-Carnival · 2026-05-09T20:23:36+00:00

Do you have any experience seeing feminists/progressives/academic gender studies folks/lgbtq+

no i dont see those people lol who gives a shit about them

Title	Do you think biological realities playing into heterosexuality is a topic that leftists/feminists are ready to discuss?
Author	FuuraKafu
Upvotes	10
Comments	160
Date	May 9, 2026 1:52 PM UTC (3 months ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1t85m7e/do_you_think_biological_realities_playing_into/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/do-you-think-biological-realities-playing-into.1579986 https://theredarchive.com/post/1579986

Comments