As I said Option A has got a lot going for it in terms of a coherent definition, observable characteristics, explanatory power....
They say we should not consider the "biological" (their quotes) sex binary in analysis as it "bears no relation to the patterns of gendered oppression, including economic, social and political exclusion, experienced by all women".
-
-
They say women’s experiences of oppression and discrimination "vary according to gender, race, class, sexual orientation and gender identity, disability, age, caste, ethnicity, migration status, amongst other factors"....
-
Not sex. The fact of having a female body (and all the associated needs & vulnerabilities of that) has completely fallen out of the analysis.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yes "no relation" is obvious nonsense , as I keep saying correlation is ~0.99
Thanks. 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.
The question is does option B put together two sets of people "some women" + "some not women" and call the new category "women" (why? for what end?)...