Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

“You’re reducing women to their genitalia!”

32 replies

53rdWay · 27/02/2018 13:38

Have seen this kind of thing a lot on Twitter etc recently. Argument seems to go: “by linking vaginas/wombs with womanhood, you are reducing women to their genitals, and this is awful.”

Am confused. Because while I as a person am of course more than my genitals, my sexed body is what defines me as a woman. My “womanness” resides entirely in my body and the sex class of that body.

So if I can’t say “my sexed body is what makes me a woman”, then what DOES make me a woman?

My brain isn’t what makes me a woman.
My soul isn’t what makes me a woman.
My hobbies aren’t what makes me a woman.
My tastes in film and TV aren’t what makes me a woman.
My clothes aren’t what makes me a woman.
My ability to apply makeup isn’t what makes me a woman (and is also nonexistent).

So if it’s not my body, what is it? And why is it “exclusionary” of me to say that it’s my body, and not something else that I can’t define and don’t know about?

Anyone managed to have an actual conversation about this where there was an answer to that? I would genuinely like to know.

OP posts:
Myunicornfliessideways · 27/02/2018 13:54

Plus: if an archaologist digs you up in a thousand years from now they will have no difficulty categorising you to either male or female. How you identify in your head is relevant only to you and your immediate and current social context.

(Howl of 'Intersex')

At which point you open the script on 'Intersex is a medical problem affecting a tiny number of people; people born without legs due to a medical problem do not disprove the human race being bipedal'

Datun · 27/02/2018 13:53

This is quite a good takedown of that premise.

Basically, if you take the wheel off a bike, is it no longer a bike?

No, it's a bike without a wheel.

holycheeseplant · 27/02/2018 13:51

Ask them to read this (and I had to stop half way through it was so difficult and haven't quite got round to continuing) and then ask them why we mustn't define woman by their sexed body. And it still occurs today.

reneejg.net/2017/02/07/a-call-to-feminists-to-remember-the-history-and-sex-based-nature-of-womens-oppression/

Myunicornfliessideways · 27/02/2018 13:50

It's a complete straw man. Woman is a biological fact: it isn't just genitals its pelvis formation, orbital bone, ovaries, uterus (dont forget the wail at this point of 'so are people with removed ovaries/menopausal not women then?! - a: no doofus, they are women with a medical issue) and female chromosomes. Born of the sex that provides ova, gestates and gives birth. It's not complicated.

At this point the script prescribes a snarled: 'biological essentialist Terfy terf terf bigot terf dieinafire terfing terf!'

To which the answer is: theres no such thing as a 'terf' you tedious fool Yep.

UpstartCrow · 27/02/2018 13:47

''Biology is what defines us as men or women'' is the only rational answer. There's no debate possible with people who are acting in bad faith. Just stick to the facts & dont bother trying to convert them.

It is interesting that they constantly try to use shame as a counter argument.

Valentinesfart · 27/02/2018 13:46

It's so stupid but particularly upsetting to hear it from feminists who would have been discussing abortion and women's health 5 years ago.

Collidascope · 27/02/2018 13:44

This drives me up the wall.
The joy of language is that there are lots of words. "Woman" does refer to genitals, chromosomes, etc. Thankfully, most of us are more than that. And there are other words to describe those other traits.
I've said it before but Donald Trump isn't limited to merely being an elected head of state when we call him a president. He also manages to be annoying, racist, sexist, unfaithful, narcissistic etc.