ok why are you so adamant on gender, but not biological sex, beïng a social construct, then?
-
-
by grouping everything outside "man" and "woman" as "intersex", we are telling points A and B that they are the same. a disservice.
-
point A in fact has more in common with point C than with point B. and is it really that helpful to lump points C and D together, frankly?
-
it may be possible to use these categories as tools of understanding, but it seems pretty clear that their current dominant usage is as…
-
tools of violent oversimplification that basically exist to let people be lazy with their cognitive maps at the cost of understanding
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Because language = categories. Categories = generalization. It's like saying "humans are bipedal", even if some have only one leg or none.
-
sure. so it'd be nice if people recognized these categories are vague and nuanced tendencies, not ironclad delineations handed down by God.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Also, like I said, I think the problem of oversimplifying sth for the sake of maintaining categories is a general language problem.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I get that. However, I also don't think the answer can be "there is no such thing as male/female" or "a penis can be female" as some claim.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think I see what you mean. There's many variants of "intersex" and lumping them all together as "that third thing" is unfair and lazy?
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.