So I've been following the attempts of some of the 'TWAW' promoters, and am bemused by the incoherency and lack of logic.
Trying to make sense of these ideas, as described by people arguing in good faith that TWAW, it seems to me that there is a unexamined belief that there really are other 'characteristics' or 'identifiers' of being a woman, apart from biological facts. The argument seems to be that you shouldn't focus on the biology when deciding who is a woman, but look at these other factors, including how a person 'feels'.
Is this perhaps partly a result of at least two decades (since the late 70s) of just about all children's clothing and toys being extremely stereotyped - i.e. pink and lilac clothes and toys for girls, never for boys. It is as if the gender stereotyping has been so all-pervasive for so long that a generation have come to believe that this 'gendering' really is part of what makes someone a man or woman. That you can ignore biology and identify a woman by her appearance, and furthermore (in a generation brought up with social media) that the sex is just not important but socially-visible identifiers are all that matters.
There seems to be a genuine incomprehension (among those who haven't thought it through) that 'sex' is not the same as the gender stereotypes, that sex is not gender identifiers. So we need to spell this out really clearly as otherwise some people just don't realise it.
Please or to access all these features
Please
or
to access all these features
Feminism: Sex & gender discussions
Is it the pink and lilac?
12 replies
Beancounter1 · 11/05/2021 21:00
OP posts:
Please create an account
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.