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.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @theedwardian81
Until historically very recently, the word ‘woman’ has had a very stable and coherent meaning - adult human female. Some men have then declared “I am a woman” and suddenly everyone is in a mess. We can choose to a) say, “that is not true”, or b) abandon any meaning to the word.
1 reply 1 retweet 12 likes -
Can you explain what it is that has led you to adopt position (b)?
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @lecanardnoir @theedwardian81
I mean the science of it is new. Obviously, you can advocate for only going by reproductive systems for ethical or political reasons but this won't make the reality that people who feel the opposite sex to their gonads exist or the science which is starting to show why go away.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
"This is what we've always believed so why stop now?' is a terrible reason for taking a position when there is now more to be known. If your fear is for women's rights if we acknowledge that trans identity is real & rooted in biology, this can addressed w/out denial of biology.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @theedwardian81
But why ‘stop believing’? Sex is by definition about reproductive capability. Suddenly, the ‘science is new’. What science? Again, what compelling reason do we have for not adopting my position (a) - just stating that someone has a false belief?
3 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @lecanardnoir @theedwardian81
Just say that then. That, for you, sex is just about reproductive systems so you'll divide people that way. Meanwhile, the science will go on discovering that actually brains and hormones etc are sexed too and trans people have those more like the opposite sex to their genitals.
7 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
So trans women with intact male bodies can and do ‘father’ children; where does this reproductive reality fit in your view?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
It's a reproductive reality?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Male and female are sexual reproductive categories. When the law refers to men and women this is what it means. You seem to be arguing for gender identity to be the legal definition resulting in ‘women’ ‘fathering’ children. It’s quite irrational.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
OK. You think that and dismiss me then. I really can't be bothered to argue about it any more.
-
-
I’m not putting forward a theory; it’s an observation. How do you reconcile the two?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.