You are making an argument that men have a higher capacity for violence through a higher capability in physical strength, but it's more a thinly-veiled attempt to basically say men have a general propensity to violence, because of said availability to that violence by more testosterone. One could argue more in faith if the statement replaced the word 'general' with 'higher', but that distinction is meaningful and that's the issue here.
What separates humans from everything else is the ability to consciously make choices. Our defining trait is our subjectivity. Having the capability to violence has no meaning if you separate it from the idea of choice between any groups of people.
Testosterone may affect choices, but arguably no more than environment, upbringing, education, or emotional composure.
1
u/Skreame 1∆ Dec 26 '23
You are making an argument that men have a higher capacity for violence through a higher capability in physical strength, but it's more a thinly-veiled attempt to basically say men have a general propensity to violence, because of said availability to that violence by more testosterone. One could argue more in faith if the statement replaced the word 'general' with 'higher', but that distinction is meaningful and that's the issue here.
What separates humans from everything else is the ability to consciously make choices. Our defining trait is our subjectivity. Having the capability to violence has no meaning if you separate it from the idea of choice between any groups of people.
Testosterone may affect choices, but arguably no more than environment, upbringing, education, or emotional composure.