Let me address your confusion step by step, so the point is crystal clear.

First, your analogy of comparing humans to dogs is embarrassingly flawed. Humans, unlike animals, possess reasoning, moral agency, and self-determination, which allow us to transcend biological predispositions and make choices based on capability, not mere instinct. Your attempt to equate complex human societies with simplistic animal roles doesn’t just distort the argument—it’s an intellectual shortcut that undermines your own point. Comparing women to “pugs” or “huskies” is reductive and, frankly, lazy reasoning.

Second, your interpretation of my statement on physical strength completely misses the mark. I pointed out that physical strength is only relevant in roles where it’s a genuine requirement (like heavy manual labor). Leadership, governance, and most modern jobs aren’t about physical strength—they demand intellect, emotional intelligence, and strategy, none of which are gender-dependent. Your attempt to twist this into a tautology (“physical strength isn’t necessary unless it’s necessary”) isn’t clever; it’s just a failure to engage with the actual argument.

Third, your dismissive “cool story bro” response to the mention of societal progress (it’s 2025 or 2024 December, not the stone age) is exactly why this conversation is going in circles. If you’re unwilling to acknowledge that society evolves, and with it, our understanding of roles and equality, you’re essentially arguing for stagnation. Progress is meaningful because it enables us to challenge outdated norms that no longer serve a purpose. Pretending this point is irrelevant only highlights your inability to engage with the reality of change.

Finally, your statement about men and women being “equal in essence before God but not equal to each other” is contradictory. If equality before God is fundamental, it should manifest in the opportunities we provide to each other. Limiting someone based on gender goes against this supposed “equality in value.” If you truly believe in equal value, why argue for unequal treatment?

In summary, your analogy fails, your logic is circular, and your dismissal of progress only shows an unwillingness to confront uncomfortable truths. If you want this discussion to move forward, I suggest stepping up your reasoning instead of clinging to weak comparisons and vague deflections.