So, I find this bit is key. The rad-fem argument that gender is the social construction isn’t wrong. That’s literally how they defined the word so as to use it in specific political ways 1/a couple
-
-
Yes ofc they are real! Bias control how ppl apply a given rationale in some cases but not in others:https://twitter.com/IrisVanRooij/status/1019866999013478401 …
-
The funny thing is TERFs hate the word "cis" and yet for all intents and purposes use "real" to mean exactly EXACTLY the same thing.
-
They also claim "cis" is a made up word (all words are made up) — but like "cis" is fucking Roman, you fucks! E.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisalpine_Gaul …
-
cis my ass
"From Proto-Indo-European *ḱe- (“here”). Cognate with ce-dō, hi-c, ec-ce, Ancient Greek ἐκεῖνος (ekeînos, “that”), Old Irish cē (“here”), Gothic 𐌷𐌹𐌼𐌼𐌰 (himma, “to this”). More at he, here."
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cis#Latin
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Also pretty much all social constructs do have a biological substrate. The law is real and has a biological substrate as well, e.g., police officers and judges are part of the biological (as well as other aspects) aspects of the law. Gender is both biological and social.
-
The problem arises when you try to say gender is only 100% exactly what I say. That's gender fascism.
-
Yes, not arguing this at all.
End of conversation
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.