Women don't exist. Waffle from the LSE

[Katvonfelttipeyebrows]

blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2019/02/13/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-gender/

I can't think of anything to say but ARGGGHHHH

I can't speak. I've peak transed so many times now that I feel dizzy and disorientated.

Does that person thinks that International Women's Day is for anyone who thinks they are a woman, btw?

I certainly fucking existed when they charged me 1000s to go there.

I see theres yet more abuse of Intersex people in that article - trying to pretend that the tiny amount of people born with Disorder of Sexual Development i.e genetic mutations proves that there are more than 2 sexes/genders again.

Im ashamed to be an alumnus.

Utter, wall to wall bollocks. Incoherent bollocks.

And this is surprisingly prominent:

'The post gives the views of its author, not the position of LSE Business Review or the London School of Economics.'

I bet it does.

I thought you had to sort of go somewhere when writing a blog or article? And actually make a point?

"In the social sciences, since the 1980’s we have been using the word “gender” instead of sex."
Well, that means that you're not scientists, because scientists need to be rigorous, and the two words don't have the same meaning.

That is the worst written pile of shite I have ever read.

I couldnt even get through it. Social science my eye. Social scientists do talk about gender but only to describe stereotypes asssociated with biological sex.They always distinguish between the two.

Calling Jane Clare Jones!

No, I can't read that. A couple of paragraphs in, and so much ignorance and idiocy. The ramblings of a total twit.

You need A*AA to study there.

The author is only visiting the LSE (thank God) How that got published though???

My very female body says bollocks. No matter what I wear, how I think or whatever, my body will always be female and I will continue to be a woman, no matter how much some types may try to take the word away from me.

That whole article reads so strangely.

I think the point they want to make is that gender stereotypes are bullshit (so girls can be strong! Boys can be sensitive! Who the fuck knew?!)

But that would make all their trans friends furious, so they've decided that gender stereotypes are brilliant instead, as long as anyone can apply them to themselves and then say they're that biological sex. If you're a sensitive boy, you're female! How progressive!

Christ on a bike. I despair for the future of the human race if this utter stupidity gets much further.

They wouldn't publish my comment lol

Uhuh
Yawn
Yes dear...

Calling Jane Clare Jones!

The fabulous JCJ posted here before as LadyPrincesexual - we could definitely do with her super powers for this...

I've just been watching this video again to reassure myself I'm not alone.

'There are people born with one genital' seemingly. Absolutely no idea what she means by that bollocks. Or should I say bollock?

''We are all an intersection of social markers of difference – there’s no such thing as “a woman”, or “a man”, in general. Therefore, gender is a better word.''

If there's no such thing as a man or a woman then how can one be trans?

This article is a load of incoherent contradictory waffle.

She probably means one testicle. I knew a man like that, he was perfectly normal. She may mean one sex chromosome, like Turner's Syndrome? I think they are technically female.

What mush. Along with that Sophie character, I really despair for the humanities.

I couldn't read beyond a few paragraphs either.

I’m also an alumni. I notice they received £9 million in donations last year (published in their Annual Accounts). I presume a lot of this was from alumni. They have a very active fundraising department. I wonder if people will be less likely to donate if they knew that rubbish like this is being published ... I certainly won’t be.

The use of the term “gender” is not only politically correct – it is more precise, acute and scientifically accurate.

Nope.

The use of the term first and foremost conveys the idea that differences are not natural, nor biological or physically located in the body, but they are socially and historically constitutedd*.

Nope. The differences are first and foremost natural and biological, and the social and historical constructs are based around those tangible differences- primarily women's reproductive ability. The constructs vary but the basis is the same.