JK Rowling article

[DrDreReturns]

Interesting read. I know it's from a Conservative site but it seems only the right are gender critical at the moment.

www.conservativehome.com/highlights/2022/03/profile-j-k-rowling-striving-to-stop-starmer-nailing-his-colours-to-the-fence-on-trans.html

I do honestly think that an identity based answer to "what is a woman" is more consistent than anything biologically based

Which identity? There are hundreds, probably thousands, of major cultures around the world and women have a different presentation and gender identity, if you will, in every one of them. Or have we gone from there being nearly 4 billion women alive right now to 'women' comprising about 5000 unique entities of which there has never been the like before in all of history because 'identity'? How white Western colonialist!

@Alltheprettyseahorses

I do honestly think that an identity based answer to "what is a woman" is more consistent than anything biologically based

Which identity? There are hundreds, probably thousands, of major cultures around the world and women have a different presentation and gender identity, if you will, in every one of them. Or have we gone from there being nearly 4 billion women alive right now to 'women' comprising about 5000 unique entities of which there has never been the like before in all of history because 'identity'? How white Western colonialist!

Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant that the identity answer itself was more consistent than a biology based definition of woman. I didn't mean that every woman has a consistent identity haha!

And your answer still makes little sense.

Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant that the identity answer itself was more consistent than a biology based definition of woman. I didn't mean that every woman has a consistent identity haha!

The identity answer (which I assume is "A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman") is only consistent in the sense of being consistently meaningless and circular. What is inconsistent about biology based definitions? Sex is pretty consistently biological.

Again the point that is yet to be acknowledged by any trans activist is :

What a male identifies as is what a male perceives as a female’s experience but it is just that. Their own perception of a female’s life. It does not reflect the reality of the life of someone living in a female sexed body. One formed around the production of large gametes, whether it produces those large gametes. It is a woman’s experience to deal with living with that body type. Anything outside of dealing with the effects of living with that body is an individuals personality. And there are billions of those and have been even more through out history.

whether it produces those large gametes or not.

Missed the ‘or not’

To claim that identiy is more important than biology you have to completely divorce and set apart humans from the rest of all life. As a biologist, systematicist and firm believer in evolution by the means of natural selection I find this utterly incomprehensible.

I do honestly think that an identity based answer to "what is a woman" is more consistent than anything biologically based

What does that even mean? And where do you draw the line? Do we start defining a black person as 'anyone who identifies as black'? A child as 'anyone who identifies as a child'? A giraffe as 'anything which anyone decides is a giraffe'?

Gender identity is a bunch of stereotypes and personality traits. Why would we classify humans on that basis, particularly when it's utterly obvious that it would be potentially dangerous and/or misleading and unhelpful in medical or safeguarding situations?

I wouldn't set too much store by this poster.

@SelfPortraitWithPterodactyl

I am deeply concerned that I appear to have allied myself with people who put mayonnaise in cucumber sandwiches.

Ffs I want cucumber sandwiches for breakfast now. No mayo, a sprinkle of salt and sliced on butter none of that thinly spread stuff, real butter, in great quantities.

Now òff to read rest of this thread, til DP gets up and I can send him to buy cucumber and real butter.

Wonder if they typed that with a straight face, surely not.

What a male identifies as is what a male perceives as a female’s experience but it is just that. Their own perception of a female’s life.

Whenever I've read an account by a 'transwoman' about their transition, it's all shoes, clothes, make up, hair, shopping. That's not a description of womanhood that I recognise.

@nepeta

Thank you for your answer, Elaine Fuchs. I think it is more complicated, because once biological sex is detached from 'women and girls', the gender identity approach replaces those terms with 'people' when talking about sex-based oppression, to be inclusive towards trans men and nonbinary people with female bodies (but at the same time erasing embodied female identities altogether).

This de-fangs feminism almost entirely, in my view, because fighting against sex-based oppression does require being able to name its victims.

Sorry it's taken me a while to get back @nepeta, please forgive the delay.

I think I disagree on a couple of points here:

Broadly, I view feminism as a movement against patriarchal power structures. Women aren't the only group harmed by this, people of all genders suffer from the patriarchy. For example men can be bound to gender roles too, and suffer from toxic expectations of masculinity. I would say in one way or another, everyone is a victim of the patriarchy (or course not all in the same way, or to the same degree).

I think this is a key tenet of intersectional feminism.

In terms of fighting for women's rights in particular, I think that trans women can and should be allies here because of a great shared purpose. Not every cause in the women's rights umbrella even affects every cisgender woman. Consider the crucial fight for bodily autonomy when it comes to abortion rights. This doesn't directly affect cis women who can't become pregnant, but this shouldn't stop them being included in feminist movements, and it doesn't lessen the word "woman" to include them.

I think the specific point you were arguing against was that by making activism more specific (for example advocating for "people who can become pregnant", or "people who menstruate") it would detach it from the word "woman" and make it less effective by virtue of not being attached to the victims, namely women (please correct me if I've misinterpreted you). I suppose the issue is that by using "women" here, we're already including too many people (for example women who can't get pregnant, or women who don't menstruate) and excluding some (trans men and non-binary people who can get pregnant and menstruate). The inclusive language is actually more accurately naming the victims. (There are some subtle points about making sure that the language used is inclusive as well as understandable to the most people, but this is probably a case-by-case issue). Having said that, I would personally still include these specific issues under the broad umbrella of women's rights.

As for your feelings of gender identity (from another post), it's absolutely not my place to argue that you do feel one and I wouldn't dream of that. The flip side is that I think we have to take trans people at their word here, I believe who they say they are, and that transitioning affects their lives in a substantial and positive way.

I think that you'll find you have a lot in common with transgender people when it comes to gender roles and feminist activism. In actually being close friends, I find it hard to imagine a group more critical of the unnecessary burdens gender places on our society.

@Helleofabore

Again the point that is yet to be acknowledged by any trans activist is :

What a male identifies as is what a male perceives as a female’s experience but it is just that. Their own perception of a female’s life. It does not reflect the reality of the life of someone living in a female sexed body. One formed around the production of large gametes, whether it produces those large gametes. It is a woman’s experience to deal with living with that body type. Anything outside of dealing with the effects of living with that body is an individuals personality. And there are billions of those and have been even more through out history.

I think being a woman has as much to do with producing large gametes as it does having long hair, or wearing makeup.

Some women do it, some women don't. None of these things are what makes a woman a woman.

I don't think there's a single behaviour or part of biology that includes every woman and excludes every non-woman.

I'm not sure where you are getting the GC / right wing overlap from. Most GC I interact with are radical feminists and generally left wing but hate that the left wing political parties don't know what a woman is. I would be shocked if they weren't pro choice. Right wing agrees with radical feminists on gender identity but for different reasons I suspect

@TheGoogleMum

I'm not sure where you are getting the GC / right wing overlap from. Most GC I interact with are radical feminists and generally left wing but hate that the left wing political parties don't know what a woman is. I would be shocked if they weren't pro choice. Right wing agrees with radical feminists on gender identity but for different reasons I suspect

Yeah, there do seem to be lots of GC people with left leaning views. The point I was trying quite hard to make is that ultra-conservative people who hold transphobic views are platformed by GC people in a way which doesn't happen in other left leaning communities.

If someone reprehensible (for example someone with terrible views on abortion) also happened to believe in trans liberation. I would still refuse to engage with their content and highlight them for their conservative views.

I don't mean to tar every GC person with this brush, I'm just saying it's a trend.

I think being a woman has as much to do with producing large gametes as it does having long hair, or wearing makeup.

Some women do it, some women don't. None of these things are what makes a woman a woman.

I don't think there's a single behaviour or part of biology that includes every woman and excludes every non-woman.

Did you actually read what I wrote though?

One formed around the production of large gametes, whether it produces those large gametes.

You say, Some women do it, some women don't.

I say, it doesn't matter one bit whether Some women do it, some women don't. That is where your argument fails everytime.

The key is that females have a body type that is formed around the production of large gametes, whether it (that body) produces those large gametes, or not.

And I want to be very clear here that people's medical conditions should never be used as an explainer or a comparator in this discussions. If your argument brings in people with differences of sex development, it completes misses the point that even there only a miniscule rare number of people in the world cannot be categorised as male or female. Many differences of sex development are in fact due to being either male or female. And it is exactly the same with females who have medical conditions meaning they do not produce those large gametes, including those with their ovaries removed.

'I think being a woman has as much to do with producing large gametes as it does having long hair, or wearing makeup.'

And I think that says all we need to know about your thoughts.

I don't think there's a single behaviour or part of biology that includes every woman and excludes every non-woman.

What is the commonality that defines a woman to you? Are we talking about a "woman" soul, basically then? And where did this ineffable "woman" concept originate from?

'I think being a woman has as much to do with producing large gametes as it does having long hair, or wearing makeup.'

And I think that says all we need to know about your thoughts

Indeed it does.

Just got the avoidance of doubt. Tje female pelvis below is formed around the production of large gametes ie the ability to produce children. I no longer produce large gametes but skeleton hasn’t miraculously changed to one not designed to give birth to children

@Helleofabore

I think being a woman has as much to do with producing large gametes as it does having long hair, or wearing makeup.

Some women do it, some women don't. None of these things are what makes a woman a woman.

I don't think there's a single behaviour or part of biology that includes every woman and excludes every non-woman.

Did you actually read what I wrote though?

One formed around the production of large gametes, whether it produces those large gametes.

You say, Some women do it, some women don't.

I say, it doesn't matter one bit whether Some women do it, some women don't. That is where your argument fails everytime.

The key is that females have a body type that is formed around the production of large gametes, whether it (that body) produces those large gametes, or not.

And I want to be very clear here that people's medical conditions should never be used as an explainer or a comparator in this discussions. If your argument brings in people with differences of sex development, it completes misses the point that even there only a miniscule rare number of people in the world cannot be categorised as male or female. Many differences of sex development are in fact due to being either male or female. And it is exactly the same with females who have medical conditions meaning they do not produce those large gametes, including those with their ovaries removed.

'I think being a woman has as much to do with producing large gametes as it does having long hair, or wearing makeup.'

And I think that says all we need to know about your thoughts.

I'm really sorry but I don't understand what you mean by "One formed around the production of large gametes". The poster above says it's to do with pelvis width, like, what is the cutoff point between male and female in cm?

"And I think that says all we need to know about your thoughts."

Sorry if it wasn't clear. I was saying that large gametes, long hair or makeup are not defining characteristics of being a women.

This "production of large gametes" thing is what really sounds like a gendered soul to me, it just falls down for every woman who doesn't produce ova... By definition their bodies aren't formed around producing gametes, because they don't...

My question:

Given a body, what is your method of determining if it's "formed around producing large gametes"

Their skeleton

Next!!

Also to paraphrase from the Naya thread

Gary Kasparov
Potato peelings

This "production of large gametes" thing is what really sounds like a gendered soul to me, it just falls down for every woman who doesn't produce ova... By definition their bodies aren't formed around producing gametes, because they don't...

All female people "don't produce ova" at some time or another. It's not "having the ability to produce ova" that makes one female, it's belonging to the sex class that can produce large gametes (ova), which are needed for reproduction, along with small gametes (sperm) which are produced by the male sex class. Again, men who don't for medical or surgical reasons produce sperm are still men.

It's not hard to grasp that sex exists and is how the species reproduces, it's the disingenuous way you are framing it to support your poor gender ideology arguments.

Sorry? You don't understand that all females have a body that contains the coding and usually the body parts to produce eggs? And that they are female regardless of whether they ever have produced eggs or not, or whether those body parts are fully working or whether they don't work at all. Or if they are missing.

You don't understand that that is the only thing that females on this planet have in common?

That their body was formed around a function even if that body has medical conditions or has been prevented in some way of doing that function?