Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

What is "biological reductivism"?

40 replies

Mumofgirlswholiketoplaywithmud · 26/01/2021 15:03

I always thought that biological reductionism was when you said things like "girly brains are good for needlepoint"... There seems to be a version of that that I've seen around recently saying that "women's rights" are not based on biology. So if they're not, what are they based on? And if "women's rights" are not based on biology, can we have a separate rights movement that help people who have periods, get pregnant, risk maternal mortality, have FGM.. get trafficked?

What is "biological reductivism"?
OP posts:
Original poster
Mumofgirlswholiketoplaywithmud · 26/01/2021 15:28

@BraveBananaBadge

Ah, thought so Mumofgirls, apologies I wasn’t in the mood to Google them I’d just get wound up 😂.

More offensive drivel from Grace.

Grace has deleted it though... I wonder if that means that Grace knew that it sounded bad even for Grace
OP posts:
Original poster
Mumofgirlswholiketoplaywithmud · 26/01/2021 15:27

@BuntingEllacott

Would it be like defining women as 'cervix-havers' perhaps, therefore reducing us completely to our biological functions, while simultaneously removing the words woman, female and even feminism as words which enable us to talk about the collective oppression and disadvantage we face in a system stacked to benefit men?
I thought about that, but then they'll be the inevitable "you're saying that someone who has had removal of their cervix is no longer included"..
OP posts:
BraveBananaBadge · 26/01/2021 15:27

Ah, thought so Mumofgirls, apologies I wasn’t in the mood to Google them I’d just get wound up 😂.

More offensive drivel from Grace.

MichelleofzeResistance · 26/01/2021 15:23

There is only one sex invested in ending sex based rights for females. And it isn't females. The concern in that investment isn't female centric either.

Which tells you everything you need to know either.

BuntingEllacott · 26/01/2021 15:21

Would it be like defining women as 'cervix-havers' perhaps, therefore reducing us completely to our biological functions, while simultaneously removing the words woman, female and even feminism as words which enable us to talk about the collective oppression and disadvantage we face in a system stacked to benefit men?

ErrolTheDragon · 26/01/2021 15:17

The civil rights of women (or lack thereof)
Have been, wrongly,
But henceforth must not be,
Defined by males.

Original poster
Mumofgirlswholiketoplaywithmud · 26/01/2021 15:15

@BraveBananaBadge

Apparently written by a clown, which is apt. Unfortunately that person is supposed to be an academic, are they not?
Yes, an associate Professor at Berkley
OP posts:
ConspiracyOfOne · 26/01/2021 15:13

The language in that tweet makes my blood boil. Male privilege just spewing out of every word.

ErrolTheDragon · 26/01/2021 15:13

Yes, there are problems with 'biological reductionism' but to pretend humans aren't dimorphic and that women's oppression didn't largely arise from biology is simply foolish. That biological difference resulted in many and various forms of cultural oppression.

Not sure what 'defending queers' has to do with it - other than that obviously the intersection of misogyny and homophobia leads to additional problems for lesbians (to the point they're being forced not to use that term of themselves).

bishopgiggles · 26/01/2021 15:12

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'.

It's really easy to lie on the internet, people do it all the time. Putting something
in
a
snappy
format
doesn't make it any more
true
or honest
or authentic
or relevant

ConspiracyOfOne · 26/01/2021 15:12

Oh look, a biological male telling women how to define feminism. LOL. Funny clown.

Soontobe60 · 26/01/2021 15:10

If you believe that women are oppressed because of their sex then you are reducing women to their biological state. This is in direct conflict with some peoples belief that anyone can be a woman if they say so. So you cant use the argument that women are oppressed in the workplace as a result of their potential to give birth, as some women (who are biological males) cannot give birth.

BraveBananaBadge · 26/01/2021 15:09

Apparently written by a clown, which is apt. Unfortunately that person is supposed to be an academic, are they not?

NonnyMouse1337 · 26/01/2021 15:07

It's a lazy term thrown around by those who would rather not admit that they are evolution deniers.

ErrolTheDragon · 26/01/2021 15:04

Not everything you read on the internet is correct, and some people have their own, appropriative, agendas.