What is "biological reductivism"?

And yet calling women uterus-havers or vulva people or menstruators is not reducing someone to their biology or biological functions?

It does. Yes.

Whenever someone advocates burning books or sides with someone who does, they are automatically in the wrong and the debate with them is over. It should be like Godwin's Law. Burn feminist theory but leave Mein Kampf on the bookshelves. Doesn't that just make a statement about the priorities here?

'Cis' requires the belief that most women somehow have an innate female gender that naturally matches their sex and that is biological reductivism in a nutshell.
Always with the darvo, that lot.

Very true.

Misogynistic TRAs like Lavery keep telling on themselves. It only 'reduces' women to be defined as female if you believe there is something inherently inferior about the female body.

You said it.

Quite.

It's the people who say that by defining sex by biological fact you're "reducing women to their reproductive function" or something while they would never say that someone describing themself as Black is to 'reduce someone to their skin colour'.

Yes. They are either stupid, or lying, or both.

www.rt.com/usa/506758-uc-berkeley-lavery-book-burning-trans/

Book burning.

Niiiice.

I was making a 'reductionist' joke, by the way, in case you hadn't noticed?

Hmm interesting.

The gleeful way in which the well established arguments, terms and so on are thrown back in the faces of the groups who conceived them winds me up no end.

Biological reductionism is bollocks.

Grace is the professor who advocated burning Abigail Shrier’s book late last year I believe.

Grace is an American, yet somehow does not understand U.S. civics, history or women's rights movements.

Sex-based rights for women' has been a thing for at least 100 years when the suffragists demanded them to be able to vote.

Who is Grace lavery?

All their tweets seem hidden at the mo

I always thought that biological reductionism was when you said things like "girly brains are good for needlepoint

That's biological determinism.

Biological determinism is quite an interesting and well loved theory (loved by MRAs obvs) that women, what with them being female, are evolutionarily adapted to be good at things like needlepoint or nursing, caring, nurturing jobs and not very good at important things like science and running countries, because you need a penis to be good at important things.

Biological reductionism is... Err... Saying women are of the sex class that fall pregnant and this is why we need feminism etc. Apparently a VERY bad thing to say and extremely "oppressive" to err... Males, somehow.

I am amazed to see that GL hates women so much that they think our sex-based rights should be removed. It is such a shock. I am totally floored. Etc, etc, etc

Mustn't say the quiet bits out loud.

Or else an associate professor from a prestigious university who has the lived experience of a male who identifies as a women realised their tweet made it clear they have overstepped into showing that genuine lack of insight this person denies having.

The argument used that ‘sex based rights’ were not a ‘thing’ is ridiculous. The term Women’s rights has been used for a very long time. Saying ‘women’ does not equal ‘sex’... only a person determined to ignore biological differences would believe that one.

So, to cut to the chase, a male person doesn't believe that female people should have tangible and specific rights.

Yeah, I've never heard an MRA say that before. Why on earth are these people so keen to stress their uniqueness? You're a bog standard, woman-hater, mate. There are millions of you out there.

The civil rights of females
have never been
are not
and must not be

"for females"

fight discussion of females and their biology
support men, defend misogyny

Grace has deleted it though... I wonder if that means that Grace knew that it sounded bad even for Grace

Bit too close to sounding like an MRA.

Mustn't say the quiet bits out loud.

In philosophy, reduction is where you reduce a concept down to a single concept - so 'water' goes from a clear liquid that is fine to drink and bathe in to 'h20', and this concept captures everything important about 'water'. So I suppose biological reductionism would be where you say 'the ONLY important thing to know about women is that they are female', which seems straightforwardly false - women are female, but they are also human beings, friends, etc.

I have heard of biological essentialism, which is the familiar sexist claim that women are good at knitting BECAUSE they are women -the claim that women are suited to various tasks or roles due to their female biology. Feminists have been fighting against this kind of sexism since at least the publication of 'vindication of the right of women', by Mary Wollstonecraft where she argued that women were not destined to ONLY be homemakers and mothers, but could be so much more.

The claim that women's civil rights and oppression has never been sex based is straightforwardly false and shows a woeful lack of knowledge of feminist history. If you read Wollstonecraft's vindication, the word 'gender' is no where to be seen but the word 'sex' is used over 200 times.The first piece of legislation enacted to combat workplace discrimination against women was the sex discrimination act. Sex based oppression was discussed by the suffragettes and Simone de Beauvoir. Mary Astell wrote a feminist treatise - 'a serious proposal to the ladies' in 1697, and her aim was to "improve her sex in knowledge and true religion.' Not a sight of the word 'gender'. If we go all the way back to the 14th century and check out 'the book of the city of the ladies' by Christine de Pizan, we see her plead with god - why did she make the female sex so irrational and 'full of deformities'? And God replies that the sexes are equal. It's sad that her words are so presence today: "I considered myself most unfortunate because God had made me inhabit a female body in this world."