See, you keep trying to make this about gender. It’s not. That’s what you seem to be too thick to understand. The topic is no longer about if women should have hairy legs or not, that’s a completely moot point. It’s about the logical fallacy of trying to argue something by saying “well if x shouldn’t exist, then why is it there?”, which is just bad logic.
That has literally nothing to do with gender anymore. No one here gives a shit if women shave or not, dumbass; it’s just the initial topic that triggered the fallacy which we are now discussing. It’s pretty fucking obvious, but that seems to have gone entirely over your head; again, because you have the critical thinking skills of a rock.
Since cetaceans are mammals, they have hair at some point in their life! dolphins are no exception. Dolphins have a few whiskers around their snout in the womb and when they are first born but they soon lose them.
Amazon River dolphins (botos) keep these hairs into adulthood - they are sensory hairs and thought to help them search for prey on the river bed along with echolocation. The water they live in is very murky so eyesight has only limited use.
The bumps on humpback whales’ head, mouth and even on their flippers are called tubercles. Those raised surfaces are actually hair follicles where a single hair grows. Similar to like a whisker, it helps the whales be able to sense their environment.
“supposed” is a bit of a tricky word for biology anyway, given that it implies intent. I guess if one is religious it works, but otherwise, itd be ascribing thought to evolutionary processes that dont seem to have a mechanism for that.
There is a certain degree of genetics and environmental adaptation here as well. Not all ethnic groups share similar body hair genes. It doesnt even seen to correlate to something like melanin production and higher/lower latitudes since body hair across Africa varies wildliy.
Of course - what I’m saying is that there’s huge variation within humans. Some ethnic groups simply don’t grow as much body hair, or it’s not nearly as course or pronounced. My partner can go weeks without shaving her legs and it’s almost impossible to tell. Many East Asian ethnic groups have far less hair than Europeans or Levant peoples. People in West Africa have relatively little body hair, while I’ve seen women with full on beards and chest hair in southern African countries.
If this conversation is between a Maori or Norwegian kid and a Bulgarian or Spanish or Armenian babysitter, that’s a stark contrast that actually would be plausible without the reality of unreasonable beauty standards ruining everyone’s day.
That variation also means that the “logic” of comparing leg hair to cancer makes as much sense as comparing leg hair to my nipples. They don’t do anything either, but XY bodies still get them. And I would bet $10 that any kid young enough to be baby-sat and say that grows up to get lip filler and joker-esque work done by the age of 28.
If this conversation is between a Maori or Norwegian kid and a Bulgarian or Spanish or Armenian babysitter, that’s a stark contrast that actually would be plausible without the reality of unreasonable beauty standards ruining everyone’s day.
It’s much more likely that the young boy in the post has picked up on societal expectations that women are supposed to shave their legs.
The amount of reaching in these comments to avoid assigning any blame to the patriarchy for these standards women are held to is astonishing.
For sure, patriarchal beauty standards are to blame here. However, it’s also sort of weird to suggest that ALL woman, and in fact, all humans, have roughly similar body hair. That’s simply false, and easily proved false if anyone cares about facts.
This isn’t some black and white issue, it’s something with degrees of truth, that’s all.
Depends on the mammal I guess, but sure. But, theres a difference between something being what typically happens, and what is supposed to happen. Were you somehow in charge of designing mammals, and decided that hair should be a crucial aspect of them, then you could say that they are supposed to have hair. But, absent anyone doing this, them having hair is simply how they happen to be and equally as unintended as them not having it, regardless of how overwhelming the percentage that has it is. If anything, one could argue that if a person shaves their hair, or decides not while being given the option, then that person has actively taken charge of designing their own appearance, at least in that regard, and therefore the way they are “supposed” to look is the way they intend to make themselves look.
I wouldn’t know if like naked mole rats or Sphinx cats or whatever are truly hairless or not, but tbh it doesn’t really matter for what I was trying to say.
Women are supposed to have body hair.
This comment thread is really revealing how many people here have the critical thinking skills of a rock.
The amount of pedantic, anti-social men on Lemmy is pretty high.
See, you keep trying to make this about gender. It’s not. That’s what you seem to be too thick to understand. The topic is no longer about if women should have hairy legs or not, that’s a completely moot point. It’s about the logical fallacy of trying to argue something by saying “well if x shouldn’t exist, then why is it there?”, which is just bad logic.
That has literally nothing to do with gender anymore. No one here gives a shit if women shave or not, dumbass; it’s just the initial topic that triggered the fallacy which we are now discussing. It’s pretty fucking obvious, but that seems to have gone entirely over your head; again, because you have the critical thinking skills of a rock.
Two topics can be active at once.
Says who? Your god?
Last time I checked, that was a pretty integral part of being a mammal.
Incorrect
It’s a defining characteristic of mammals.
Then explain whales and dolphins
https://us.whales.org/do-whales-and-dolphin-have-hair/
Y’all just can’t let a woman be right, can you?
They’re born with hair and it falls off.
He didn’t say otherwise, just pointed out the argument used was poor.
Who’s to say cancer isn’t supposed to grow?
It’s a bad comparison because women are supposed to grow body hair.
It’s not a comparison except in logic, where it is a perfect comparison.
Again, who are you to say that? I could make the exact opposite argument and you would have to obey because I said so.
Women are mammals same as men. We grow hair on our bodies.
Nobody is supposed to have body hair.
“supposed” is a bit of a tricky word for biology anyway, given that it implies intent. I guess if one is religious it works, but otherwise, itd be ascribing thought to evolutionary processes that dont seem to have a mechanism for that.
Wouldn’t it be abnormal for a mammal to not grow hair though?
There is a certain degree of genetics and environmental adaptation here as well. Not all ethnic groups share similar body hair genes. It doesnt even seen to correlate to something like melanin production and higher/lower latitudes since body hair across Africa varies wildliy.
Oh come on.
It is normal for women to grow body hair.
Of course - what I’m saying is that there’s huge variation within humans. Some ethnic groups simply don’t grow as much body hair, or it’s not nearly as course or pronounced. My partner can go weeks without shaving her legs and it’s almost impossible to tell. Many East Asian ethnic groups have far less hair than Europeans or Levant peoples. People in West Africa have relatively little body hair, while I’ve seen women with full on beards and chest hair in southern African countries.
If this conversation is between a Maori or Norwegian kid and a Bulgarian or Spanish or Armenian babysitter, that’s a stark contrast that actually would be plausible without the reality of unreasonable beauty standards ruining everyone’s day.
That variation also means that the “logic” of comparing leg hair to cancer makes as much sense as comparing leg hair to my nipples. They don’t do anything either, but XY bodies still get them. And I would bet $10 that any kid young enough to be baby-sat and say that grows up to get lip filler and joker-esque work done by the age of 28.
It’s much more likely that the young boy in the post has picked up on societal expectations that women are supposed to shave their legs.
The amount of reaching in these comments to avoid assigning any blame to the patriarchy for these standards women are held to is astonishing.
For sure, patriarchal beauty standards are to blame here. However, it’s also sort of weird to suggest that ALL woman, and in fact, all humans, have roughly similar body hair. That’s simply false, and easily proved false if anyone cares about facts.
This isn’t some black and white issue, it’s something with degrees of truth, that’s all.
No. There’s plenty of mammals without hair.
Women are not those types of mammals.
Depends on the mammal I guess, but sure. But, theres a difference between something being what typically happens, and what is supposed to happen. Were you somehow in charge of designing mammals, and decided that hair should be a crucial aspect of them, then you could say that they are supposed to have hair. But, absent anyone doing this, them having hair is simply how they happen to be and equally as unintended as them not having it, regardless of how overwhelming the percentage that has it is. If anything, one could argue that if a person shaves their hair, or decides not while being given the option, then that person has actively taken charge of designing their own appearance, at least in that regard, and therefore the way they are “supposed” to look is the way they intend to make themselves look.
I don’t believe there are any truly hairless mammals?
I have never seen a dolphin, dugong or whale with hair
Dolphins are born with hair on their snout.
I wouldn’t know if like naked mole rats or Sphinx cats or whatever are truly hairless or not, but tbh it doesn’t really matter for what I was trying to say.
How do we know women hair isn’t just cancer? 🤔
How do we know women aren’t just giant blobs of cancer?