But sexism is based on a binary definition. Denying this doesn't help anyone.
-
-
Replying to @Salapandas @2010Equality and
I'd argue rigid binary definition is a tool of sexism, or in a larger more global behavioural sense, the general compulsion some experience to suppress others to elevate themselves
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TheMercifulZeus @Salapandas and
Does racism exist because ethnicities really are significantly different from each other? Or is it just because it's a convenient axis of otherness that can be easily divided out of anger and fear and cruel selfishness and what ever else drives people like that?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TheMercifulZeus @Salapandas and
It's not denying anything. It's recognizing that maybe the boundaries only exist to keep people in their supposed place
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TheMercifulZeus @2010Equality and
I don't understand what point you're trying to make. There are biological differences between men and women.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Salapandas @2010Equality and
There are differences, but they aren't a cut and dry binary. There's variation, exceptions, and intermingling across an array of different conditions and circumstances. And any criteria I've ever seen anyone use to ridgedly define things excludes someone or another on that scale
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TheMercifulZeus @Salapandas and
And no one has ever once demonstrated why having those strict guidelines is worth leaving people behind, dismissed with a hand wave of "oh no, not those biological exceptions, they're fine. I meant /these/ practically indistinguishable exceptions. Those guys don't count"
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TheMercifulZeus @2010Equality and
What do you mean when you say left behind? Woman and man is about what chromosomes you have. In some very rare instances its not possible to tell by observation what sex a baby is but that doesn't mean the sex binary (or intersex individuals) are broken or invalid.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Salapandas @2010Equality and
It's not just about how easy it is to observe: http://amp.livescience.com/27248-chromosomes.html … There's more it mentions too. That's what gets left out by referring to strict biological criteria. Biology doesn't seem to agreepic.twitter.com/krEp8ChdHL
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TheMercifulZeus @Salapandas and
Here's another fun one: http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/persistent-mullerian-duct-syndrome … Men, ie those with entirely male outward characteristics without variation of identity or XY structure, who have full female reproductive systems as well. Does that put them in a 'potentially child bearing' classification?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
In 72 countries homosexual relationships are criminalised. In Iran women must wear a headscarf. In most countries women only got the vote a few generations ago. 830 women a day die in childbirth. I cannot take on good faith your assertion that M & F are new & difficult categoriespic.twitter.com/lWuA5GMnka
-
-
Replying to @MForstater @Salapandas and
No where did I say they were new and the idea that sex is less rigidly binary does not effect how horrific or indefensible any of those sited circumstances are
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TheMercifulZeus @MForstater and
Honestly I'm not even sure where you're going with that. The idea that biological definitions are more complicated /expands/ our recognition of people who are oppressed or disenfranchised for sexual characteristics. Literally the entire point is not overlooking our removing them
1 reply 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.