"A cis woman may say “I’m a woman because I was born in a body read as one”

[Hepwo]

https://twitter.com/ButNotTheCity/status/1675875028704063489

A paper for you to critique! The thread title is a quote from the twitter thread by the author so if that's the hypothesis then it's all a bit wonky from the start!

It goes on...

Why? Because it’s not about whether the body makes the gender but rather about the fact that her brain looked at the social messages associated with her body and decided to identify as a woman because of them. It’s still the identification that makes the woman.

I am having a laugh over this woo in the twitter thread, never mind the paper.

There's a podcast too. I may listen for increased entertainment value.
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/florence-ashley/episodes/What-is-it-like-to-have-a-gender-identity-e26fc9s/a-aa31h25

The author is Canadian.
Enjoy!

Dear God. I'm so relieved to be me

More..
·
Things like my profound joy at my own thighs jiggling; the sensory enjoyment of jiggling is an autistic thing for me just as much as it is a gender thing. That doesn’t make it less valid as a gender thing—it just adds as bit of explanation for how one of my ‘basics’ came about.

Chromosomes FGS, chromosomes!

“I knew I was a girl because I liked barbies” is fine so long as you don’t try to convince others who like barbies that they are girls (if you think this was about a trans girl, question your biases).

Wut!

After years in the making, my paper on GI is finally out in MIND, one of the most prestigious philosophy journals in the world, of all places.

Yes, of all places. There are enough phools in philosophy already without this.

Lordy, that is quite the word salad.

I’m not sure this person can mansplain to me anything about being a woman though.

Fair point @LonginesPrime - I'm not going around calling myself a cis-woman either - maybe the people that do do indeed talk like this

Yes.

They tie themselves in knots trying to make gender ideology work. They can write anything they want, it doesn't make it true though.

I have never seen such a load of pretentious, incomprehensible drivel. How on Earth does she get financed for writing it?

Trying to get my head around this.

Suppose scientists did an experiment, where they took a group of young children and assigned them randomly to 'boy' and girl' types. Being a boy or girl was nothing to do with their body, but each type would be treated differently. 'Girls' wore dresses and were encouraged to play with dolls, to be placid and pretty and nice. 'Boys' had short hair, wore trousers and were encouraged to play rough and tumble, adventurous games. It's obvious you'd have two tribes forming, with boy and girl identities - but within those tribes there would be awareness, as the children grew older, that some of them were female and some were male. In short, 'gender identity' without reference to biological sex is meaningless.

I don't understand why that post was hidden.

I think posts are automatically hidden if certain terms are used?

I can’t read it, but your podcast link says it’s Florence Ashley, renowned for utter nonsense and certainly not a “cis” woman.

Yes that must have been it, SabrinaThwaite. First time it's happened to me!

I usually look with my eyes. My brain then unscrambles the data.

But I found I was a girl, which I wasn’t particularly impressed with as boys seemed to have it better. But I just had to get on and make the best of it., because realistically, there’s nothing I can do which will stop reality carrying right on.

Yes, the author is talking about a hypothetical cis woman who had her body read.

Possibly with tarot cards.

And the earth is definitely flat because...

and there is one true saviour because...

and fairies are absolutely real because....

It all reminds me of the bloke in the student union pub on Friday nights who used to get hammered and then lean tearfully into your face to demand "are you saved?"

"No mate, fuck off and don't worry about it."

So, I read the full rabbit. I understood every single word, apart from 'Transitude' but, when the words were joined up into sentences, they lost me completely.

Because it’s not about whether the body makes the gender but rather about the fact that her brain looked at the social messages associated with her body and decided to identify as a woman because of them.

So why then do so many male people seem to identify as women, but still adhere to the “social messages”(/gender stereotypes and behaviours) associated with male bodies? Exposing themselves, making sexually violent threats, muscling their way into the limelight, expecting everyone to make way for them, are the opposite of these supposed feminine messages. What drew these males to “womanhood” then?

Sounds like they are very close to understanding feminity / gender as a social construct. Pity they leap to changing bodies to match though. They have almost grasped one of the founding points of feminist oppression there.

Yet higher monk tree units cheese little month last Christmas.

along those lines? As I had the same issue, the individual words made sense but the way they were connected into sentences melted my brain!

Exactly.

The thing is, if the only reason most female bodied people think they are "women" is because society gives us social messages that "woman" matches this body, why do genderists still believe in the concept of "women" at all? Why would society have somehow pulled out of nowhere a belief that some people are "women" and some are "men" when the only reason it thinks that - observation of the two sexes - is (according to genderists) not what men and women are?

Makes no sense. The words "woman" and "man" came into being as the labels of things that were observed. To say these things don't exist yet the words somehow still have an existence which we need to link to the correct thing instead is just...inane. It's like believing "cars" do exist but "cars" are nothing to do with petrol powered vehicles, "cars" are actually a type of table so we need to stop using "cars" for the vehicles and start using it for the tables instead.

Absolutely. I'm not entirely sure that the journal is living up to its "aims to take quality to be the sole criterion of publication, with no area of philosophy, no style of philosophy, and no school of philosophy excluded". I guess we'll find out when they publish a rebuttal of the nonsense linked to in the OP...

@SockGoddess agree with you. Also I've always wondered how trans men transitioning to a woman.... Know what it feels like to be a woman? Only a woman knows how it feels to be a woman if that makes sense. Am aware this might be a unpopular thing to say but I have not yet had one clear explanation as to how somebody transitioning to another sex knows what it feels like to be the other sex.