I am the author of the first peer reviewed academic monograph arguing Jesus probably did not exist. Conclusion: at best a 1 in 3 chance there ever was a real Jesus.

But the remark you are quoting can mean the Jesus of faith, not history. All mainstream scholars agree the Jesus depicted in the Gospels and worshiped by Christians did not exist; that if any Jesus existed, he was a very different person, or a person about whom we can know next to nothing.

You don’t deny the existence of historical Jesus…do you?

That last sentence is a non sequitur. On the same logic you could say “the very existence of slavery entails everyone had clothes on their back and plenty to eat so why are you complaining?” Or “the very fact that 19th century children could get jobs in factories means there is no way they could have been underpaid.” And so on. I see no sense here. There are countless examples of people being underpaid for their work, regardless of gender. It’s a well established concept in the science of economics. And it’s precisely why people try to bargain for raises using peers’ pay scales as their benchmark. Everyone knows this. (Except you, apparently.)

Your first point, however, remains unintelligible to me. The most I can make out, you are trying to say something about wages being defined by the demand; but revenue is the indicator of demand. Yet you are somehow trying to separate what a person is worth, from how much they earn. And I am missing what the justification for that separation is. You never clearly say. The analogy to car wheels is just bonkers and makes no sense. Nearer to would be that a smaller car should have a smaller gas tank, which, surprise, they tend to do, contrary to what you had wished for; but even that analogy fails to make sense, as there is no correct analog between fuel capacity and market value of work. Even less between that and wheel number.

I’ll try to fix your confused muddle.

We can figure a different industry, which is not all about the players and their performance (without which the whole shop closes). Let’s say Amazon. Those working Amazon warehouses are not like athletes because they are just cogs, invisible and completely replaceable. No one chooses Amazon over Barnes & Noble because they “have the most amazing warehouse workers.” So there, the revenue of Amazon is not necessarily directly tied to warehouse labor. And yet, their warehouse workers are in fact underpaid, relative to what is necessary for a healthy economy. Underpaid work puts strains on the community and social services and contributes to poverty that undermines social functionality, e.g. school budgets are strained as workers can’t afford to fund them and thus the next generation becomes less educated and disciplined and thus less capable of competing in the global economy, and it undermines productivity and, ironically, the ability of people to shop at Amazon. Plus it’s just simply unfair. It is an unjust world where the actual objective difference between a CEO and a laborer (even factoring in cost to train up and rarity of ability) is no longer anywhere near proportional to their pay. Income disparity is a major cause of economic decline, and always has been throughout all history. Even rich people agree; and yet are too irrational to act in their own self-interest to fix it.

Now imagine Amazon was paying women warehouse workers less than male. For the same exact output and work performance. That would be unjust. And unjustifiable. (Also in fact illegal.)

Shift back now to athletic team sports. How is it any different? And yet, in athletic team sports, they are not even invisible interchangeable cogs. They are actually defining the entire ability of the shop to make revenue at all, wholly by their ability to excel in performance and attract audience to watch them. (Amazon does not earn revenue by selling seats to watch its warehouse workers.) More importantly, they are doing so in a system identical to male teams (thus any differences of contribution by other areas of the shop, e.g. marketing, is already analogous to the male team’s shop and thus already accounted for). So being paid less than their peers for exactly the same output and performance is unjust. And unjustifiable. (It’s only not illegal because it isn’t the exact same owners doing it.)

Another way to think of it is that any shop is a team. Not just the players, but marketers and everyone else. They are all pulling together to generate a successful enterprise and share the profits. Teams that screw their own members over by not sharing revenue justly are shitty teams. And we get to call them shitty teams. And if they don’t like that, they will just have to do something about it. Something other than trying to hide their shame. Because that makes them even shittier. And we’ll call them out for it all the worse.

It is analogous to saying a smaller car should have proportionally less wheels; if the players in the game are the chassis and their support; marketers, managers, camera operators, etc are the wheels.

Even if we take at face value that you’re right that women’s soccer players earn less even as a proportion of revenue, where is your evidence that they aren’t given their earned wages?

Indeed, the very existence of women’s soccer teams exist suggests that they are given enough wages or too much. Otherwise they wouldn’t be able to fill a team.

ah OK, now I understand what you meant.

???

Dude. I wrote a whole article on defining sex and gender. And just did again in comments here.

And I already told you Zinnia was not talking about reproduction, never was, and she has explicitly said so several times. You are insanely obsessed with genitals. But she isn’t talking about genitals. Nor are genitals determinative of sex (many people have no genitals or ability to reproduce). And gender is not sex.

Continue to pretend you haven’t been told this three times now, and you are done here.

Sex does not reference reproductive ability, because wombs can become lost or nonfunctional, as can ovaries and testicles. You’ll notice we don’t “de-sex” someone who is missing a womb or gonads, or any organ. Animals also can be classified by sex, and also can lack reproductive ability regardless of sex.

Indeed, sexual reproduction precedes even the existence of distinct sexes. And even once sexing existed, hermaphroditism became functionally common in the biosphere (e.g. many kinds of flowers are innately both male and female in respect to sex; and, obviously, non-hermaphoroditic flowers have a sex but no gender).

Fundamentally sex is a property of chromosomes, not organs. Because organs can be missing or lost or disabled. If you cut all the stamens out of a flower, you haven’t changed its sex. You’ve just sterilized it. But we still can use sexing to reference morphology, since we usually can’t examine chromosomes and can only sex organisms by visible structures. However, visible structure does not reliably match chromosome structure. So observational sexing is less reliable than genetic sexing.

Thus male sexed (XY) humans with AIS assemble as morphologically female in the womb. They are born with all the same statistically distributed morphology you would think is female (vaginas, muscle and bone structure, fat distribution, body chemistry, ovaries), and have bodies indistinguishable from those generated by a genetic female (XX), except for the absence of a womb. These folks are sexed both male (chromosomally) and female (morphologically) and usually present and are raised female in respect to gender. Many women in this category, don’t even know it; nor do their partners (you will likely never know, no matter how intimate you get; nor might even they). Because there is no obvious way to tell (without specific scientific tests most people never have to take).

Sex is therefore not terribly useful in a social context. You never know nor ever need know what chromosomes someone has or what internal organs they have. Much less what genitals they have. None are externally visible or perform any social function. And these don’t reliably line up. There are XY biological females (a chromosomal male with AIS) and XX biological males (a chromosomal female with XXMS), as well as full and partial hermaphorodites, and persons with ambiguous or missing genitalia (regardless of chromosomal sex), and of course chemically or even surgically altered transsexuals (emulating the AIS or XXMS conditions artificially).

Gender is the only thing that has any social use. Because it’s the only thing that’s socially detectable, and that has any social effect. Because it is behavioral (even in respect to altering or maintaining appearance) and externally signaled according to local cultural norms and expectations (dress, hair, cosmetic, vocal habits, body language, scale of adherence to paradigms, etc.). And yet gender is becoming more and more fluid over time as we less and less require anyone to adhere to norms. Some would argue we shouldn’t even have genders in that case. Just people mixing and matching chosen attributes any way they want without stigma or stereotype. But we are centuries away from a society even capable of that. But a society that did that is functionally conceivable. It would find our notion of gender peculiar. Gender wouldn’t exist in their world. And sex would be socially irrelevant (as it pretty much is already).

But you still don’t have enough guts, enough intellectual honesty, to actually define sex – i.e., “male” and “female” – do you? Nor to address the standard biological one, i.e., the ability to produce sperm or ova. Nor to acknowledge that Zinnia was insisting that transwomen are female – despite your earlier claim to the contrary.

While you’re to be commended for changing your tune a bit from days of yore, you still look rather remarkably narrow-minded and dogmatic – the fatal flaw that led to the demise of Atheism-Plus itself.

Now you are just ignoring every fact and repeating the same falsehoods and weirdo views.

Gender is not a statement about biology. Sex is not gender. And sex is already referenced in the prefixes trans- and cis-. This refutes everything you are saying. And you’ve had this explained to you repeatedly.

So I won’t let through any other comment by you that continues to ignore this fact.