>>13558201You are just assuming that there would be discrimination. Most likely it wouldn't happen.
>There isn't even a point logically. Who the fuck cares if a woman can create more babies?Fecundity selection is literally the most important selection mechanic on the female of a species and is the reason for why female larger dimorphism is the most ubiquitous dimorphism in the animal kingdom. If in the same timeframe woman A makes 3 babies and woman B makes 9-12 babies, woman B has spread more copies of her genes and has superior fecundity, and over (a short period of) time her descendants will dominate the genepool.
>We don't need more babies, if we created kids at a faster rate than we do now overpopulation would be an actual problem. They don't need as much. They can support a larger population for the same amount of resources. Also overpopulation is a meme we just need clean ways to produce energy and deal with waste.
>Super strong short males would create more war and more destructionNot necessarily, they'd just be better at it if/when they needed to do it. This is one of the best parts about it. The males become better at getting rid of other people (other males) in order to expand their own influence, take land and resources etc., while at the same time being safer for the women in their own group. So when it comes to domestic and normal life the men are not a threat to the women but when it comes to warfare or dominating other groups the men become better at doing that.
So basically when women birth males they're making cute little guys that don't pose as much of a threat to them, but that they can send out to take land and resources for them, and since the males don't need much resources for themselves they give it to the women who then go one to produce more children and expand their influence and genes. All the while the women maintain society, pursuing their own interests and careers.
They're better in every way.
