bizarre definition of woman

[parietal]

I've followed the GC debate quietly here for years, but this is the first time I've seen the other side actually provide a definition, and it is pretty bizarre & insulting.

So here is the tweet, from @graceelavery, somewhere further down this thread

twitter.com/graceelavery/status/1405661319903289344

-----
well, i think it’s like your definition of “firefighter”—quite circular, as it goes, because it is a messy, socialized term. a woman is a person who is, or has been, presumed to adopt a passive role in sexual intercourse and a reproductive role in economic life. it’s not perfect
-----

Oh, we've had bad definitions before. This is certainly not an outlier.

Helen Joyce was collecting them for her book. There was a Twitter thread, but it seems she's deleted it.

But you can catch her talking about them in this podcast.

Helen Joyce on the Odd Redefinition of the Word “Woman”

Quillette contributor Helen Joyce talks to Jonathan Kay about the many ways in which gender ideologues have tied themselves in knots by trying to make the sisterhood more "inclusive".

Hilarious listen. And rage-inducing.

Looking at that definition, I am not a woman. Does the same person define transwoman? Maybe I am a transwoman?

And who are these people "presumed to adopt a passive role in sexual intercourse and a reproductive role in economic life"? How do the people doing the presuming identify them?

I've just clicked through to our new lexicographer's twitter profile. Lavery's own words: "happy, lucky, horny, indomitable".

Does this mean that Lavery doesn't adopt "a passive role in sexual intercourse"?

Do we all have to state our sexual preferences in order to define ourselves as women? I am so confused

So are women men until they lose their virginity?

I'm usually quite grateful for these, the responses are a joy to read.

If people cannot see the misogyny in this movement, it has to be because they are deliberately glossing over this stuff.

And Lavery was an academic at Berkeley. One whose role was questioned as to their ability to set relevant assessment for their courses.

This is supposed to be a prominent activist yet comes out with misogynistic trope regularly.

When people tell you who they are, believe them alright.

Keep talking Grace Laverty. Sunlight is a wonderful thing.

The reply about nuns being men then was a good one.

So do two lesbians who fancy eachother just lie there waiting for the other one to make the first move?

Of course, let’s not forget this gem from English Rugby now either.

'Female: a person who does not produce male levels of testosterone at puberty and adolescence'
England Rugby.

I am curious about how one could adopt a "reproductive role in economic life". Is this like a biological version of quantitative easing, whereby you give birth to money?

'Female: a person who does not produce male levels of testosterone at puberty and adolescence'
England Rugby.

They define trans women as male then? Sounds like they also define Caster Semenya as male?

But more to the point, how are they defining ‘male levels’ unless they know what they mean by male?

Is this Grave Lavery person TWAW? They sound like it, but have just defined women in a way that makes TW not women:

a woman is a person who is, or has been, presumed to adopt a passive role in sexual intercourse and a reproductive role in economic life.

"Women. The things you fuck and impregnate."

I like it. They think they're telling us who we are but really they're telling us who they are.

Oh yes, my favourite MN phrase ever, "when someone shows you who they really are - listen".

@JellySlice

Is this Grave Lavery person TWAW? They sound like it, but have just defined women in a way that makes TW not women:

a woman is a person who is, or has been, presumed to adopt a passive role in sexual intercourse and a reproductive role in economic life.

Yes, definitely inclined to the TWAW philosophical position.

"ForGrace Lavery, coming out as a trans woman was nerve-racking at first. A professor in Berkeley’s Department of English, she was afraid of how her colleagues and students would react. As she explains, a certain amount of criticism comes with the territory of being in academia, adding that, “in my profession, there’s always some degree ofanxiety.”

But her experience was also nuanced and affirming. When Lavery changed her name at work, the English Department moved “lightning quick” to make the necessary adjustments. She sent an email to her department manager, and by the end of the day, her name had been changed outside her office and on her inbox tray in WheelerHall.

Lavery, who was hired as a professor in Victorian literature in 2013, became interested in trans studies after reading the work of 19th century writerGeorge Eliot. She wanted to know why Eliot, who was born Mary Ann Evans, went by a male pseudonym. Many of the explanations Lavery found just didn’t cut it, which led her to do her own scholarly research. What she discovered were “deeper and richer ways of thinking about gendered language and identity claims” than she hadexpected."

Continues: alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/fall-2020/transitioning-with-grace-lavery-coming-out-in-academia

I actually think this is homophobic. If you have two sexual partners, as soon as one is “passive” that will be a woman. What about the other one (especially if no children and unemployed)?

Is this the end of homosexual relationships?

What a load of nonsense.

Sunlight.

I realised a good while ago that I have no 'gender'. Now I see I am also not a woman.

I do wonder, though, who does the perceiving? Because I don't perceive women as adopting a passive role in sexual intercourse and a reproductive role in economic life. So are we actually saying that women are people perceived BY MEN in this way.

This is a whole other level of of oppression and is disgusting.

@parietal

I've followed the GC debate quietly here for years, but this is the first time I've seen the other side actually provide a definition, and it is pretty bizarre & insulting.

So here is the tweet, from @graceelavery, somewhere further down this thread

twitter.com/graceelavery/status/1405661319903289344

-----
well, i think it’s like your definition of “firefighter”—quite circular, as it goes, because it is a messy, socialized term. a woman is a person who is, or has been, presumed to adopt a passive role in sexual intercourse and a reproductive role in economic life. it’s not perfect
-----

That's an AGP definition.

"a woman is a person who is, or has been, presumed to adopt a passive role in sexual intercourse and a reproductive role in economic life. it’s not perfect"

It's not only "not perfect". It is offensive in a multitude of ways, as PP have described, as well as being simply wrong.

Awful awful awful. Vile

Sounds like how archaic cultures like the Taliban see women. In those cultures a man does not count as gay if he enjoys sex with a male in the active role. The man in the passive role, however, is devalued, worthless like a woman… (That iranian gays‘ only escape is SRS surgery falls into a similar logic). Oh well…