I understand the US government is going about defining man and woman based on a framework of biological sex. What alternatives should be used to not ‘erase' trans people that are coherent, material, objective and useful in law?
And people make them. We just can't enforce them on everyone or agree on them and so the meaning generally remains a vague & fluffy "characteristics, identities & behaviours which are associated with sex but are not biological organs."
-
-
Is that another way of saying there are no stable meanings to these words? And if so, how are you not erasing the concept of ‘woman’ as having an objective, material meaning?
-
The reality is that there is no stable meanings to these words, yes. If there were, you'd not be arguing to me that gender doesn't make sense because it would. I didn't make the reality and pretending it doesn't exist won't produce an objective, material meaning.
-
One day, we might know all there is to know about why some people are trans and be able to plot the biological aspects of what makes someone a woman including gonads, brains, hormones, responses to pheromones, genetics etc and be able to plot people on that. We can't now.
-
Currently, you are just arguing to restrict the objective meaning to gonads (almost no-one aegues gonads are not objectively real & bimodal. The whole concept of trans relies on it) and ignore the rest of relevant biology. That will fail as trans people will continue to exist.
-
There are only two sexual reproductive classes, male and female, and the entire history of the male-class exploiting the female-class has occurred along those lines. Women being infertile (e.g.) did not enable them to opt out of the oppressed class.
-
It matters that women be able to make those statements and have them mean something. It's the entire core of feminism.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.