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
-----

And like a PP, I wonder about the economic reproduction bit.

I liked the quantitative easing take, though!

I must be honest, I wasn't offended by this as it simply makes no sense to me whatsoever.

We're told that being a woman is about your "inner gender identity" but how can anyone have "an inner identity" that consists of a purely social function like being "assumed to be passive in sexual intercourse".

Perhaps we ought to give her credit for at least attempting a definition even if it does seem like garbage.

But @HPFA we already have a fully functioning definition. A woman is an adult human female. You have to wonder who benefits from changing a perfectly workable and clear definition. It certainly isn't women (by which I mean adult human females btw!).

Totally agree about the gender identity thing. There is confusion between what people are perceived as and what they perceive themselves to be. It's not helpful to conflate those issues.

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.

Oh, I hadn't connected the dots. Is this the same Grace Lavery?

Same Grace Lavery

But its most definitely not a fetish, oh no absolutely not 😶

@Datun

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.

Oh, I hadn't connected the dots. Is this the same Grace Lavery?

Ok, clearly a total nutjob

AGP… is that when a man is sexually aroused by thinking about himself as a woman? Or of course a transwoman who is sexually excited at the thought of themselves as a biological woman… I don’t want to misgender?

For anyone who hasn't come across Lavery before, there is a long thread on an agricultural website which is quite enlightening

@Datun

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.

Oh, I hadn't connected the dots. Is this the same Grace Lavery?

It is the same one, yes!

This is also the person who got away with their professional university profile with the submissive head tilt and bits pushed forward with hand on hip.

No pose any female would ever put up as a professional profile and be ever taken seriously.

But that pose goes hand in hand with their many comments about 'what a women is'.

Not another one who's sexual imagination apparently extends only to strict missionary with the woman lying back and thinking of England and the manly man thrusting in, in order to produce offspring she will then dote on.

It's all so Gilead.

Gosh they really do tie themselves in knots to make the definition of woman fit them. But alas, the definition is already clear. Woman: adult human female.

Wow. A definition which manages to be misogynistic, homophobic and also liable to be deemed transphobic by those who believe TWAW.

As one of the comments perceptively notes, with the amount of seriousness this definition is due: 'your thinky bits are broken'

@Erikrie

Gosh they really do tie themselves in knots to make the definition of woman fit them. But alas, the definition is already clear. Woman: adult human female.

But it doesn't! Lavery says they're horny and indomitable. So clearly they're not a woman, right?

Gosh they really do tie themselves in knots to make the definition of woman fit them.

But it doesn't even do that.
'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. '? Well, I can't say I've ever thought about anyone else's 'role' in sexual intercourse, wtf would you? afaik Lavery is wide of the mark, suggesting ignorance of women in happy equal relationships. And I seriously doubt anyone has ever presumed Lavery to have much of a 'reproductive role in economic life'.

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

Well, that might be more a reflection of Grace Lavery's life (but that's their business) than a robust or even scientifically accurate definition of a woman or a female human being (large gamete haver).

@Siblingquandary

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

As somebody living in the U.K. I’d wonder how I could use that definition in an unfair dismissal case, or to discuss access to healthcare. I realise they don’t worry about those kinds of things in the United States.

'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. '

Are nuns women?

@PurgatoryOfPotholes

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?

Could one opt out of this by wearing a hat?

@TheWeeDonkey

But its most definitely not a fetish, oh no absolutely not 😶

🤫 Do not speak truth to autogynophiles.

Do they sign off their emails as "fuckhole"

wtf did I just read.

What I find weird about this definition is it doesn’t even encompass grace. Grace doesn’t have children, has not reproduced, and works as a lecturer and writer. So doesn’t engage in reproductive labour so isn’t a woman!

I have to give grace credit for actually coming up with a definition but god it’s a bit sad and sexist and reductive isn’t it? Women are just good for passive sex and making babies. Didn’t Derrida and the post structuralist caution against dangerous and unhelpful binaries like passive/active , reproductive/paid labour ?

What if you prefer lying on your back, but just because you're lazy. (Asking for a friend.)

'your thinky bits are broken'

That response ends with "clean your room" and is one of my favoirites.