/antidentity/ - Anti-Identity Politics

The second point you make is pretty good. But The second is messy.

Financially, it isn't a better investment between giving a job to a man rather than a women when dealing with reproduction systems.

Then there's certain jobs that is heavy in physical condition that would obviously place males at the functionally better position.

Depending on the job, it may not factor in pregnancies as a liability but I'd imagine that it would even if the jobs wouldn't require it.

I'd rather not use an example like this, but imagine a person prone to disease and extra medical costs. It wouldn't be better to invest in such economically. Sorta like cancer and what not. And while pregnancies aren't a biological disability, it is a financial one.
But each case is examined individually so perhaps a disability in reproduction may prove a financial advantage. Yet even merit can compensate for this.

I'd argue that it isn't the innate predisposition that defines us but rather out ability to overcome it through the power of action and merit of the individual.

Even so both sexes have advantages over the other in other ways as well, not just financial.

I'll contest that the sense of collectivization of people characterized by innate traits are the largest bases for the problems consisting today.

It is that the individual should be valued as the the foremost important entity rather than the group. This is because the individual is the basis for groups that small effects of individuals alter and change the group by the power of the group's consisting individuals.

It is to ascertain and hold that people who hold for equality contradict the principle of equality by produced effects rather than the quality of innate characteristics.

This is to recognize and use not the innate as an identity but rather the decisions and actions of each individual. It is by the actions and beliefs of an individual that a person should be characterized. This is because actions are a better indicator of a person. Collectivists may argue that it is the tendency that should be put forward, yet it is actually the individual that should be put fort. It is not wrong to base certain assumptions based off of tendency but relying on it too much and causing action that harm many innocents are not right.

So in shorter summary, actions and individual are the first and foremost identity that should be used more than now in a place filled with innate and collectivist identities.

Even in actions the individual is the most important form of identity. To mitigate collectivist identity the less identity that one has the more it is harder to assign someone an identity. In this scenario it is easier to judge someone by words rather than some other indicator of identity.

In other words, words are the manifestation of character, actions, and beliefs.

The less identity one has the better is is to not fall into such groupings.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.