(which sounds reasonable but legally does not work ). Julie makes the strong case that this is not a debate where "both sides are as bad as the other" and Trevor agrees. This is about men bullying women. Ayesha brings up suicide stats and says can't we just all be nice?
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @MForstater
onthemark 🇨🇦 Retweeted Radically Transsexual
Can you explain why it legally doesn't work? Also what do you think of this definition of woman?https://twitter.com/TransRadically/status/1199750570787119109 …
onthemark 🇨🇦 added,
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nogenderid @MForstater
When I was 16 I put on some makeup & got served in pubs no problem. Just because I passed for 18 doesn’t mean the definition of 18 y/o included me. Being able to pass as something is only possible if the ‘something’ has actual material characteristics which can be imitated.>
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
If being 18 included being 16 my 16 year old self would not have to ‘pass’ as 18, I would just have ‘been’ 18.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Also “the subordinate class” being part of the definition of ‘woman’ can fuck right off. Women are not defined by their subordinate status thank you v much. It’s really low to use women’s current (but *not* inevitable) position as a means to shoehorn your way into the class.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chloeklassen @MForstater
onthemark 🇨🇦 Retweeted inji duducu
This pretty much sums up my view on the definition of woman:https://twitter.com/injiduducu/status/1200014619953319936 …
onthemark 🇨🇦 added,
inji duducu @injiduducuAnswer to the question “what is a woman”? It’s funny how everyone for all of human history has known who to deny rights to, who to take as sex slaves, who to kill at birth, who to banish to menstrual huts, who to sell as child brides, who not to educate, who to feed less... https://twitter.com/Dams_Lefty/status/1199723449247252480 …1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
-
Replying to @chloeklassen @MForstater
well then the subordinate class is part of the definition of woman because these are all the ways that women have and continue to be oppressed and how patriarchy propagates from one moment in time to another.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nogenderid @MForstater
Those things happen to women yes, which is why it is important politically that we can talk about women as a class, but surely you don’t *define* women by these things? Eg if women achieved liberation from all this, you think there would no longer be a class called women?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @chloeklassen @MForstater
Yep. I think
@TransRadically would agree with that. I don't believe we will ever be liberated from the patriarchy, but that is a secondary issue.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Yes agree with all of the above. Women = adult human female. The other definition is utterly offensive . Imagine explaining it to a child. "You are a girl, that means you are subordinate to boys".
-
-
That "other definition" is what I was taught by society and my family as a child... it was obvious that women were subordinated to men and boys were preferable to girls. I ended up with no gender id.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I think Maya is confusing descriptive - what is - with prescriptive - what should be. The only prescriptive definitions should be related to biological potential and those very precise needs. Females bear and deliver live young. Their bodies have specific needs. That is all.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 3 more replies
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.