Of course trans people exist, but I suspect their many experiences, motives and presentations do not enable a unified, useful defintion. On the other hand, you appear to not want to recognise the objective, material existence of women? I hope I am wrong.
-
-
Replying to @lecanardnoir
I sent you an essay. I recognise the objective material reality that biological sex is bimodal in teams of reproductive systems, yes, but also that gender comes from a variety of other biological aspects like brains, hormones, genetics etc.
3 replies 2 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @lecanardnoir
Andy, are you sure you aren't doubling down a little too hard here? Having known you through skeptical stuff for years and Helen's views widely disseminated and dissected the last few weeks.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @theedwardian81 @HPluckrose
I know, I am surprised I am here too right now. The disputable concepts of gender appear to come through various fashionable nonsense ideologies of the various pomo-style theories. So, I am just fascinated as to where this might lead?
2 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @lecanardnoir @theedwardian81
We've always done this in one way or another. If "He is a feminine man" makes sense to you, you too instinctively see gender as something different to biological organs. It's annoying to discuss and attempt to define sharply tho so I tend not to get into it.
4 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @theedwardian81
I think these terms like sex and gender, male and female are deserving of analytical definitions, not loose handwaving that may be masking fallacies, errors and nonsense. Protections and rights surely depend on this.
2 replies 2 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @lecanardnoir @theedwardian81
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."
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @theedwardian81
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @lecanardnoir @theedwardian81
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.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
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.
4 replies 0 retweets 1 like
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.
5 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @corrientecanta @HPluckrose and
It matters that women be able to make those statements and have them mean something. It's the entire core of feminism.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - 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.