Skip to main content
Skip to main navigation
Skip to talk navigation

Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Flip

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Family member who is very pro-trans retweeted this without seeing the irony

21 replies

banivani · 23/01/2017 08:11

twitter.com/MicroSFF/status/823134188190781440

(I haven't yet talked to this relative about these issues, but that conversation is going to be fun. I did have a huge discussion with my husband and eldest daughter not long ago. They both thought I was transphobic but my daughter could see my points anyway so there's hope for her - not sure about my husband.)

OP posts:

Report

DearMrDilkington · 23/01/2017 08:14

I can't understand what it means

SexTrainGlue · 23/01/2017 08:14

Being "protrans" is a good thing.

A bit like being pro any other specified group mentioned in the Equalities Act.

There is no 'ranking' of protected characteristics.

IWantATardis · 23/01/2017 08:20

I don't understand the tweet either

BlahBlahBland · 23/01/2017 08:22

Being nostalgic about the good old days when everyone was human, whilst in the same breath harking on about biologicals, a term which is dehumanising at best.

Trills · 23/01/2017 08:24

I like the micro SF twitter.

Don't think it has anything to be with trans issues.

It's clearly about computers/robots.

BlahBlahBland · 23/01/2017 08:26

And also yes, human is a precise definition, and a handy separation between us humans and, say, dogs or horses.
Sex though (not gender) is also a precise definition.
No matter how much we are told that a female can have a penis, it is wrong. Female as a biological definition + penis = does not compute.

People should live in a way that makes them happy, however I'm not convinced that biology can be redefined to suit a minority of people. Not sure if that makes me a TERF.

heppi · 23/01/2017 08:27

I think the tweet is imagining a time when android types have claimed the word 'human' and demoted actual humans to the word 'biologicals'.

Much like TRAs have claimed the word 'woman' and renamed actual women as 'cis'.

BlahBlahBland · 23/01/2017 08:28

It's still ironic reading it as an android PoV, because this is what's happening now re. penises are also female.

Reality16 · 23/01/2017 08:30

Why do you need to talk to the relative about 'these issues' kind of ironic considering you don't seem to have understood the point of the tweet yourself

AyeAmarok · 23/01/2017 08:32

Is it male/female that is the biological sex term? I thought it was man/woman?

Trills · 23/01/2017 08:39

It's an account for tiny pieces of science fiction writing.

The beauty of the smallness is that we can all interpret the story in a different way.

If you see it as being analogous to issues you see in the real world, that's great. That shows that the piece is well-written, because it inspires thought.

Don't assume that others have the same interpretation of the story, or that their story is one on which the same analogies can be drawn.

heppi · 23/01/2017 08:58

Male/female is the biological term. It's the renaming that is analogous, in my interpretation anyway.

ErrolTheDragon · 23/01/2017 08:58

Is it male/female that is the biological sex term? I thought it was man/woman?

Yes, of course - male/female is the sex term applicable to any organism which has two sexes (or parts of organisms eg pollen and fruits). Man/woman is the specific case of male/female humans.

heppi · 23/01/2017 09:02

That is true actually, both are biological terms, just man/woman is specific to humans, as you say Errol.

Weird how the trans 'woman is a feeling' digs into your head uninvited.

EBearhug · 23/01/2017 09:51

Is it male/female that is the biological sex term?

You can talk about a male or female cat. Or fish. Or flower parts.

banivani · 23/01/2017 12:18

Oh god sorry sorry sorry. Realise this was hastily posted and now I'll be dripping in more info. In my head of course my thought process was perfectly clear from my post but then I didn't sleep well tonight.

My relative is protrans in a manner that I no longer can 100 % agree with, since I find that centering trans issues means that (biological) womanhood is erased. These arguments you all know since they are often discussed on this board. When she retweeted this micro-SF story (I like the micro-SF twitter in general - the format is very clever IMO), I found it ironic since she often retweets stuff like "saying vaginas are female is cis-sexist and we need to be mindful of this" so I reacted. And I wanted to discuss this but being sleep-addled I failed to provide context.

The little twitter story is about (well, this is my interpretation anyway) androids now owning the term humans for themselves, while humans are "biologicals", which to me is analogous to the rising idea that "woman" cannot be used to refer to "natal" women, who instead must be referred to by a new term (cis), whereas transwomen can be permitted to use only the word woman to describe themselves. I do understand the story but I failed to explain my analogy.

I find that I want to discuss these issues more and more because it seems like so many around me are happily accepting that words are changing meaning without thinking about what this means for women, and because I feel it's a step backwards from working towards a society in which gender roles are abolished. So I want to talk about it with my relative, who in some respects is a little prone to swallowing whatever seems like a just cause at the time. I feel there must be a way to be a true trans ally and advocate human rights and freedom from persecution without erasing women.

Sorry I was so unclear. I could ask for deletion if all the cool logical heads on the board are still reeling from my half-arsed input this morning?

OP posts:

Manumission · 23/01/2017 12:25

The CIswomen/Biologicals equivalence is what struck me too. Makes sense as far as this sleep-deprived brain can see

ChocChocPorridge · 23/01/2017 12:27

It's the human version of that thing about the spade the gardener has had for 30 years - sure, he's replaced the handle a couple of times, and the blade once....

Two advanced/evolved/modified humans, one of which realises they've moved beyond what humanity is, and one that's rarified the definition, so that they can still precisely define themselves as human. The twist being that that means that the original humans, the biologicals, no longer meet that definition.

SomeDyke · 23/01/2017 14:30

"It's the human version of that thing about the spade the gardener has had for 30 years.........."
Sci-Fi, AI, and Trigger's broom, all in one thread, who'd a thunk it!

Not convinced that MicroSFF tweet is that great, too wordy, and just waffly. Looking at a few others, seems a bit obsessed with AI/robotics (old hat as far as SF is concerned, has no one read Azimov. or anything since.......).

ChocChocPorridge · 23/01/2017 16:21

Ah! Yes! I can even see the skit in my head now you say Trigger's broom!

I think it's a bit holier than though, as though the book that came of that idea would be a bit too preachy.

Now you've mentioned him, it's time for my 5 yearly attempt to read the Foundation series (not managed more than half a book since I started trying when I was about 13)

SomeDyke · 23/01/2017 17:51

"it's time for my 5 yearly attempt to read the Foundation series"
Then you've got more determination than me, I just stuck to the short stories..................

Flip

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.