What is "biological reductivism"?

[Mumofgirlswholiketoplaywithmud]

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?

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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).

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

@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

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

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?

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.

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.

@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"..

@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

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."

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Who is Grace lavery?

All their tweets seem hidden at the mo

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.

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