Second/third wave feminists argued against a biological definition of womanhood??

[resistingreality]

I just saw this by Zoe Williams in The Guardian. I know she has form ... but did all second and third wave feminists argue against a biological definition of womanhood? I wasn't aware of that. I mean Butler maybe ... but otherwise? Overall, this seems such a weird place to shoehorn something on TERFs and what it takes to be a woman. I don't think women have to suffer with childbirth etc to be a woman, but I do know only women experience childbirth.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/10/jennifer-aniston-fertility-obsession-ivf

I was a second wave feminist, active in the late 60s and the 70s. I can't speak for every second-waver but in my circle we were very clear that we were denied equal pay, the ability to get a loan or a mortgage, without male guarantors, the discrimination against younger married women because we were women, access to certain jobs etc. because of biology. The social/cultural discrimination followed on from the biological facts. So it was a double whammy - discriminated against because of biology compounded by discrimination because of prevailing social norms.

How did women all know who they were to fight for their rights then?

Just rubbish. I cant imagine how anyone, even the Guardian employs Zoe Williams as a contributor. Most of her stuff is just meaningless. Makes you wonder the reality of her world. But I suppose a useful tool for the paper.

This
The position that "feminists used to be against biological reductionism" is a misinterpretation by TRAs.
Feminists are against the idea that having a vagina predetermines what you can do with your life. Always have been, always will be.

That article is a huge missed opportunity. I think the way Aniston has been treated is very illuminating from a feminist perspective, but the author makes it about trans rights. Odd direction to go in.

Most of the article is factually wrong, misguided and confused. I can’t bring myself to explain all her errors but suffice to say that we never thought in the 1970s and 1980s that we needed to define what a woman was because everyone bloody knew. And we were fighting against the stigmas, oppression, lack of choice, lack of recognition of our adult autonomy etc etc all caused because everyone knew what a woman was and it suited society to keep us downtrodden, underpaid, dependent on male goodwill.

that article is a load of tosh.

I was a second wave feminist, active in the late 60s and the 70s. I can't speak for every second-waver but in my circle we were very clear that we were denied equal pay, the ability to get a loan or a mortgage, without male guarantors, the discrimination against younger married women because we were women, access to certain jobs etc. because of biology. The social/cultural discrimination followed on from the biological facts. So it was a double whammy - discriminated against because of biology compounded by discrimination because of prevailing social norms.

will read the article later but i agree with this. I would add that as well as not wanting to be limited by our biology, we wanted gender stereotypes to do one. Hence we were all hairy legged dungaree wearing, doc marten be-booted harpies.