Should a hermaphroditic alien species be sexist to men and women of other species?

Depends on the Hentai. Futa fem-cucking the GF by pegging the guy, futa Lesbianism cucking the guy, straight up dominance of both parties, even the couple dominating the futa and using them as a sex-toy... It goes a lot of different ways.

A final example is one from a few days ago. Imagine a hermaphroditic species. The dominant ones mostly act as males so they can reproduce as widely as possible with the minimum metabolic investment. The less powerful ones will become more submissive and take on the female role, ensuring that they have at least some offspring. In between, the ones who are competitive but not at the top will fight constantly among themselves, ideally taking male roles but sometimes being poached as females by the ones who overpower them.

In that scenario, sex-locked organisms and the dynamic.ics and mathematics of sex will be very alien to them. They might well be very sexist, at least when they aren't thinking about it, because they don't recognize sexual equality and can't totally comprehend the idea of a dominant female or submissive male. Sure it makes sense once they've studied it, but the instinctive assumption is that a submissive male will turn predominantly female so he can have mating opportunities, or that a female will turn mostly male if she's dominant and so they'll misread situations that they don't take time to think through. They may look down on females or wonder why hyperaggressive males don't pen a harem up and use them as brood mares. They'd come off, ironically, as having exaggerated gender roles and grossly sexist societies.

And why not? Humans have a little sexual dimorphism, but not much. And being locked into our sexes means that we don't have to constantly fight and negotiate and plot and make elaborate displays to establish our gender roles.

It's more the latter but it's common to consider people thinking everyone need to stick to traditionnal gender roles as being sexist.

>Humans have a little sexual dimorphism, but not much
>But not much
We have some of the highest sexual dimorphism among all mammals...

I don't know if I'd necessarily use the term sexist in that case, but sure.

Yeah, whichever they consider least like themselves. Alternatively, both\the entire species but that's not sexism it's specism\racism.

>but it's common to consider people thinking everyone need to stick to traditionnal gender roles as being sexist.
Why? It's like of like people accusing of you of being a racist for thinking that race exists where the word racist has the connotation that implies you believe one race is superior to another. Doesn't make sense, am I racist just for believing race exists? In that same way, am I sexist for believing that there are natural differences between the sexes in terms of physical attributes and behavioral traits?

Woops meant for

Well a lot of people believing in strong differences between races and sexes do tend to believe one is superior or that people shouldn't have the right to act against what they are so obviously many will be weary of the whole notion.

lol, not at all. You just happen to focus on the differences because your brain is coded to do it. If you were any other species you would find human males and females to be the same.

>Being this out of the know about genetics
Wew lad , there are objective difference between the sexes that go outside of social constructivism is what I was saying. Apparently in the Year of our Lord 2017 , that makes me a sexist in some circles

Depends on the setting and race.

>mih genes

so you karyotype test everyone you meet? You must be a busy shithead then

I mean, I think different people evolved to meet different environmental circumstances as part of an environmental strategy. For instance Caucasians typically have lower melanin content in their skin because it AIDS in the production if vitamin D via UV radiation exposure, the reason this is theorizes to have been a dominant evolutionary strategy is due to Caucasians living further away from the equator thus receiving less sunlight in less intensity and requiring more sensitive skin. Africans on the other hand have high melanin content in their skin because they evolved closer to the equator and high melanin content reduces risks of skin cancer. That's just one difference amongst many.

None of that implies "superiority" just "difference". Is that a racist thing to say because I'm just being a biology nerd desu

>Muh genes
It's called biological determinism and it's a theory of human behavior that posits that human behavior is partially genetic. Studies of monozygotic twins separated at birth and numerous adoption studies have , over the years, come to prove this very highly. That's just for behavior, let alone phenotypical differences

Depends on setting and race.

It's not about "should" it's about "do you want them to?"

My hermaphrodites are sexist towards women as they find the idea of submiting to taking it in willingly and enjoying it extrtemely disgusting.

They are kind of based upon russian prison culture.

It's got a bunch of meetings based on ideology, etc. Legally actionable sexism is treating customers, vendors, partners, or employees different on the basis of sex. There's a whole complicated body of law that surrounds this, including carve-outs and exceptions.

Constitutionally, it's an enshrinement of equality under the law. The Constitution prevents the GOVERNMENT from drawing a legal distinction between the sexes, which case law ironically elaborates by offering different protections based on sex.

Social / cultural definitions exist, most of which call for there to be no gender roles. Often these are embraced by identity politics activists who push one gender to the detriment of the other.

It's also complicated by the fact that supporters of stopping sexism in law and/or commerce often do NOT support abolishing gender roles in culture. Guys face this problem when deciding whether to hold a door open for a woman... you'll get yelled at by someone at some point no matter what you do.

So basically it depends. It doesn't help that nearly everyone in the West opposes sexism in some form, but people on all sides of the culture war like to be intentionally vague about just what definition of sexism they're using at a given point in time.

>It's got a bunch of meetings based on ideology, etc. Legally actionable sexism is treating customers, vendors, partners, or employees different on the basis of sex.
Wut, so just recognizing someone as being a women/man and treating them accordingly is sexist now? Wtf in what countries is this happening in?
>It's also complicated by the fact that supporters of stopping sexism in law and/or commerce often do NOT support abolishing gender roles in culture.
Do business practices and work environments no longer count as part of a person's life and culture? Maybe it's just because I live in a fairly conservative part of the US, but surely the workplace can't be that sterilized everywhere? Christ

>Guys face this problem when deciding you'll get yelled at by someone at some point no matter what you do
>whether to hold a door open for a woman...
>you'll get yelled at by someone
What?

>Wut, so just recognizing someone as being a women/man and treating them accordingly is sexist now? Wtf in what countries is this happening in?
What is treating someone accordingly to their sex? what if it goes against how some men or women want to live their life?
>Do business practices and work environments no longer count as part of a person's life and culture? Maybe it's just because I live in a fairly conservative part of the US, but surely the workplace can't be that sterilized everywhere? Christ
Do people really want to not be able to work if their coworkers or employers don't like what their private life is?

This is 100% correct. Human sexual dimorphism is comparatively minor compared to other animals. Not nonexistent but not huge.

>What is treating someone accordingly to their sex?
What do you mean? It's treating men as men and women as women. That should be be pretty self explanatory
>What if it interferes with how certain people want to live their lives
Negative liberty works both ways I suppose, and transexuals (I assume that is what you are talking about) have to understand that by asserting themselves they are also interfering with others. Businesses ought to be able to control their work environments how they please instead of sabotage freedom of association.
>Do people really want to not be able to work if their coworkers or employers don't like what their private life is?
Do people really want to work with their co workers if they don't like what their private life is like?

Some women get furious at you because they see it as patronizing and a relic of patriarchal culture. Some get mad if you DON'T hold it open because then you're not being a gentleman.

We're in the middle of a cultural transition from one set of rules to another. So people who adhere to one set of rules will be offended that you demonstrate adherence to the other, and use the opportunity to express anger and thereby agitate for their own preferred set of rules.

>wtf in what countries is this happening in

Canada

>Human sexual dimorphism is comparatively minor compared to other animals.
Just because we aren't like angler fish (whose males transfuse their flesh onto the female and becomes permanent organ) doesn't mean sexual dimorphism is negligible

Minor compared to other species, but major inside our species. For example, women are multiple standard deviations weaker than men; so about 95% of women are weaker than the bottom 5% of men.

Can we get off feminism and get back on hypothetical hermaphrodites' reactions to human sexuality?

Yeah it "depends on setting". Pick a setting, explain how they react and why. I'm assuming that people reading this are world-builders and looking for ideas.

>Do people really want to work with their co workers if they don't like what their private life is like?
Most people need to work to live, so you want to pay so they can live on welfare all their life or do you think they should die?
>Negative liberty works both ways I suppose, and transexuals (I assume that is what you are talking about) have to understand that by asserting themselves they are also interfering with others. Businesses ought to be able to control their work environments how they please instead of sabotage freedom of association.
Well I wasn't being specific but transexuals also need to work, so same question as above about them.

>Some women get furious at you because they see it as patronizing and a relic of patriarchal culture.
This has never happened to me once though? You hold the door for strangers to be a polite, it's a common courtesy regardless of sex.
>Google it
>Canada Criminalizes Use of Wrong Gender Pronouns
Don't people still speak French in Canada? Are they going to completely reinvent the language just to accomodate new genders?

>People need to work to live
They also need to conform to live, we have an ethos promoted in our culture that the government doesn't have a right to interfere in. Trying to ensure that the rights of the many do not completely dominate the rights of the few and that the rights of the few do not dominate the many is difficult. That's why freedom of association is so vital. Anything else is just terrorizing people

I said minor compared to other species, not negligible.

Remember also that in a sci fi setting, human biotech will have changed some of those rules. Human variability will have gone up enough that starting sex is unlikely to have much to do with a person's traits compared to in-species variation between individuals.

>Can we get off feminism and get back on hypothetical hermaphrodites' reactions to human sexuality?

This has never worked in the history of ever. Either you post on topic or engage in the shit posting.

High Tier Strat: Report the Thread.

>it's better to let people starve to death because their coworkers and/or employers are judgemental than forcing people to work at worse with a tranny; most of the time someone unmarried who could be a fag
t. ancap inhuman.

I hold doors for everyone too but I've been yelled at about it. It's not about me, it's about people seeing themselves as soldiers in a culture war and dragging the rest of us into it.

Like some of the people in this thread.

And who is deciding what is a reasonable standard of "conforming"? What religion and sexuality?

No, that would be rude

Don't be a douche. Contribute, lurk, or don't click on the thread in the first place. Shit-reporting and shit-posting are close cousins.

Oh and we had a thread on middle eastern superheroes a few weeks ago that got turned around from /pol/ and became a great conversation about challenging and repurposing the conventions of the superhero genre.

Asshole is a choice

>Starve to death
Wtf no last time I checked there are plenty of liberal positions how are fine with the whole lgbtq thing who would hire gays readily. That is freedom of association as well, because then they can fire conservatives as they please. That doesnt mean conservatives will starve either , I'm not against welfare I'm just pointing out that government enforced cultural changes are anti-freedom.

The dominant culture of a given area that exists without government interference? Could be anything from athiest to Mormonism, just depends on the area. It's not that every business would segregate itself from all manners of people is disagrees with either it's giving people the right to choose who to exclude

Well this was fun read. I am never having homoerotic thoughts again.

Was that example based off the Monstergirl Futas that can crossbreed with each other thing?

>Futashaming
AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

rather than a setting, i think it would more depends on what kind of hermaphrodism we are talking about
one example of hermaphrodism that hasn't been brought up is mono-sexed species, who had only female that reproduce through parthenogenesis (basicly, female get pregnant with a clone of themselves. Funnily enough, some species need to orgasm to ovulate, and therefore become pregnant in this case, which means sex would still be a thing. Yeah).
They would feel closer to women, but feel weird about the whole concept of men.

pic not entirely related, but similar in a lot of ways

Nah man that's not racist. Racism is more about believing that one race is, was, and always will the be better for every situation than alternative races. What you've proposed is merely what said races specialized in. The worst thing that could be is a stereotype..

Wow I feel a hell of a lot less gay now

thats assuming that they are basically human futas where one is a top with its male sex organ and one is a bottom with its female sex organ

what if they are like snails where both parties impregnate and get pregnant at the same time

Or what is it that is exactly preventing them from just switching roles mid coitus?

>thats assuming that they are basically human futas where one is a top with its male sex organ and one is a bottom with its female sex organ
Aw geez. One of these days we are going to need to fix the anime problem.

I explored other forms of hermaphrodism in a previous post. But you're right about my assumptions for THIS scenario.

Basically, females have to make a huge metabolic investment to reproduce, during which they're also physically impaired. Males make a very small one. So if you've got great genes, the best way to propagate them is to impregnate others. If you have very poor genes, then either you impregnate other poor specimens (and produce weak offspring) or let yourself be impregnated by someone with great genes.

I'd imagine that nothing prevents them from switching. Mid-tier beings might do this on purpose, or if the top/bottom roles are set via struggle, a flip is easily possible. That's probably most of society: aggressive, paranoid, potentially a top or bottom so constantly on a hair trigger to keep the reproductively more fruitful role while taking the best target you can. Once pregnant, more docile and calm and nurturing, though potentially still capable of impregnating someone else who isn't careful. You'd need a strong instinct to protect and support pregnant mothers and children since there's no pair bond.

But the best of the best, the ones with the least stress hormones, will only be impregnated by bad chance. I'd expect such beings to be less fertile in the female role so they aren't debilitated by pregnancy and forced into a cycle that keeps them from remaining dominant. Whereas for a very weak specimen (high stress hormones), the male urges decline and female fertility rises so they engage in fewer risky confrontations and stay pregnant and docile.

Anyway, it's one possibility, one that overturns our own assumptions about sex and gender and culture and provides for an interesting race that will have an interesting view of us.

I'm open to hearing about other scenarios such as what your intelligent snail-style aliens would operate and perceive us. That's the whole point of the thread: to explore possibilities.

Also the nice thing is that you could imagine many family structures and cultures for the same biology, just as with humans. That's your factions and historical backstory. It's critically important in determining everything about them, and yet flexible enough that several alternatives are possible.