"What Is A Woman" by Richard Dawkins - in the the New Statesman!!

[Qbishy]

Wow, I can't imagine the New Statesman, of all mags, commissioning this a year ago...

Why biological sex matters - New Statesman

There is limited point in wailing at women to care and mind about people who have no fucks to give about them. No. Not a doormat, not co dependent, not a misogynist, and not that bloody stupid.

Exactly. It's surprising these people haven't grasped that yet. Still, I suppose it's mostly tribal and performative.

Relax, everyone, there's bound to be a response in the next issue where the vexed question of "What is a Man?" is discussed.

I'd never heard of her. This is just ridiculous:

As the New York Magazine critic Andrea Long Chu has written in her book Females (2019), the biological category “female”, as it is understood today, was developed in the 19th century as a way of referring to black slaves.

You’ve really got to wonder how these people think babies are made

what a confusing world they live in where nothing means anything and you can’t tell what sex anyone is

Oh ffs.

If this ridiculous bunch were capable of understanding and permitting that some women must have single sex spaces to be able to access, and would just let this happen alongside third spaces/additional spaces, this could all happen without anyone having to get really blunt about this being a space for the real women, because biology, because no one changes sex. We could just quietly do this and TW could be women all they wanted.

The more the pomo bollocks and fantasy, and the further this ridiculous stuff is pushed, the clearer and blunter everyone has to get. And it will end with everyone losing patience and saying right, fuck this, there are men and women and you use sex based spaces, end of.

This boggles me a little, they don't seem to realize they are arguing in a circle.

But it's common with critical theory types in my experience. Always assuming their approach is true when trying to argue it is true. Like, there seems to be no requirement for even basic logic in their arguments.

I just don't even understand how someone could think this. I assume AC is just fibbing, but isn't it obviously a fib to everyone else?

I've got the copy in front of me. I've read the Rose piece but not the Dawkins one yet. As PP have said, the Rose article is very poor, and many of the arguments (if you can call them that) were familiar from various bad-faith posts right here on MN! Nothing new, the same old, same old. If this is what 'clever' academics are coming up with...

So who is this Rose?
Cannot form a coherent argument at all, but is at the pinnacle of a profession?
Which profession? Paintball?

Dawkins is bang on the money, though a bit behind the times with his mention of «true transsexuals»

I’m getting rather bored waiting for a persuasive well-evidenced argument FOR gender ideology, and am beginning to reluctantly conclude that there simply aren’t any.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jul/28/jacqueline-rose-books-interview-motherhood

Interestingly, she tells us in here. Susan Stryker explained it to her.

Oh what a load of unintelligible guff. I despair of academics, do they make a living from obfuscation.

Stryker also monetising race. This sells well for white American academics.

We should question a mindset that viciously excludes whole groups of people

Exclusion isn’t a bad thing in many contexts. We hear so much about inclusion that it seems easy to argue against exclusion. Also, they’re only excluded from places or definitions they don’t belong in. A man can’t be a woman. A man shouldn’t be in a woman’s prison, just like an adult isn’t a child and shouldn’t be allowed to enroll in primary school.

Here he talks a load of shit about toilets.

https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/gender-neutral-public-toilets-should-be-the-norm-20160504-golmtp.html

Sex-segregated public toilets, on the other hand, are unnatural social constructs – human inventions that organise our bodily functions according to cultural scripts.

What an arse.

"what I'm trying to work on is the difference between sex and race within bio political modernity"

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT

"trans people are... in touch with the inherent strangeness of our sexual lives and that to give birth to someone is also to put you in touch with a kind of strangeness."
I doubt whether that even makes sense in her head.

Academic postmodernism is certainly strange though.

Richard Dawkins he’s a rum one. Always ready for a spat and not just with Christians

Such nonsense. Let's have an argument, what is a cat? And another article saying it's cruel and narrow minded not to include dogs. That's about as logical as this bollocks.

gosh what a pile of 'poop' (to use his preferred word) that is

Contrary to popular fears, mixed-gender restrooms, which increase bathroom occupancy, are safer than single-sex ones

reader, I don't want to shock you, but he doesn't supply any evidence to back up this statement

astonishing!

They've always known they don't have a persuasive argument, which is why 'no debate' was the mantra for so long.

"what I'm trying to work on is the difference between sex and race within bio political modernity"

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT

He's saying "pay me and I will call everyone racist for you".

it's good to see the old crafts kept alive

That is a shocking amount of codswallop
😱😬😲

Relentlessly aligning 'transphobia' with racism is central to the Ideology.