Every skill is different from every other qualitatively.

Skills are not related by any natural ranking from their intrinsic attributes.

Their distribution across society is not a natural consequence of their intrinsic attributes, but rather results from processes that are social, relating to accessibly and desirability for individuals receiving training.

Social processes are not natural, because they occur in society, not in nature.

I am sorry that you are feeling confused as you try to follow, but further simplification would be impossible.

As explained, I clarified the sense for which I invoked the term.

Beyond seeking such an answer, your question is not particularly coherent. No right is being asserted.

I invoked the term originally, and later clarified the meaning, which is not in my experience controversial.

How do you understand nature?

Care work is just about as useless and unskilled as any, taking as the guide how work is valorized under current systems.

deleted by creator

Irony.

Workers’ agency already has been removed.

Their accomplishments already are being plundered.

Otherwise, the discussion would not be occurring, and the conditions from which it emerged would be only fictional.

I am interested in criticizing the systems that have produced the disempowerment, and in building new systems that empower everyone.

You are interested on avoiding criticisms of the systems in which problems are occurring, denying the deeper structure of such systems, fatuously asserting their benevolence, and obstructing possibilities for transformation.

Your accusation about denying reality is dishonest.

You live beneath particular social systems sustained by ideals of a particular historic period, and refuse to see further, while deriding anyone even for trying.

Between us, I am the only attempting to provide a meaningful contribution.

If you have one of your own, please offer it. Otherwise, stop making noise.

Nevertheless, a worker who has been trained is a worker who has become skilled.

A worker who has been trained on a job site is worker who has become skilled in work at the job site.

Some have considered such questions more carefully than others.

I am only suggesting everyone consider them personally, before anchoring to any strong opinions.

You have not been in fact particularly kind or charitable.

Nevertheless, please advise me over which terms I misused.

I will accept any correction that can be validated.

deleted by creator

You asserted a consensus had been formed.

Who participated in forming the consensus?

Did you participate? Are you benefiting from such a consensus? Would you be harmed by its being replaced?

Why is your tone so protective and forceful?

All jobs may be described as you have done.

Again, who imposes such distinctions, and who benefits from such distinctions being imposed?

Straw man attack.

Ad-hominem appeal to motive.

I have not advocated for a definition being imposed.

I have encouraged critical inquiry over the emergence and entrenchment of terms and constructs.

The line is imaginary, and division by any line is not particularly natural or useful.

What consensus are you imagining? I cannot recall being asked to offer an opinion for any consensus.

Who participated in constructing the consensus? What processes are generally available to challenge the entrenched consensus, or to direct the development of a new consensus?

Which groups have supported such a consensus more strongly than others?

Which are the people who are dominating culture and language, who carry the power to fulfill your prediction?

How do such distinctions and constructs originally emerge, and why do they remain entrenched?

You are describing someone acquiring skills over the course of a week.

An assessment as you have given would depend on, as a basis, the general skills already prevalent within a target population.

Also, it is questionable that someone would not continue to develop skill through practicing a task longer than a week.

Your invocation of a judgment is essentially vacuous, as you have done with the word “master”.

Nature is that which occurs independent from the particular intentions of individuals or the particular configuration of society.

Human societies occur within nature. We utilize and transform facets of nature toward our needs and ends. That which we create or produce is not natural.

In various societies, members tend to express different behaviors, are subjected to different experiences, and have different roles and relationships.

At any rate, the distinction is not required in the immediate context. I am now repeating for the third time that the distribution of an item or class of item within a system is not the same as its intrinsic attributes.

deleted by creator