sundin13 said:
Quote 1: Because the feminist movement asserts that there is more to women and therefore womanhood than biology, for a feminist to assert that the only confine of womanhood is "biology" or genitals, that is inherently hypocritical. It is not dismissing that biology plays some role in various aspects, it is instead stating that reducing everything to genitals is reductive and hypocritical for this group. Quote 2: This one is largely self explanatory. If we are to define a woman solely by biology, whose role is it to do so, as much of the information relating to biology is non-physical and not known by most individuals. The vast majority of people do not have a printout of their genetic code on hand. As such, any assertion by society or even a doctor is typically unable to see the full picture of an individual's biology to make their conclusion. The first is an argument that womanhood extends beyond biology. This is not dismissing that biology plays some role, but simply stating that it does not create the full picture. It is essentially saying A+B=C. B=/=C. The second is an argument that biology is a lot deeper than a handful of physical differences. This is not an argument that biology doesn't matter, but instead an argument that biology is a (metaphorical) iceberg and what you see is just the tip. Quote 3: Male=/=Maleness. Words mean the things they mean. They don't mean the things they don't mean. I have already defined maleness+femaleness for you if you wish to scroll back and look at that definition. That said, your assumption was ridiculously dumb and unnecessary. If I were to bring up physics in a discussion of buildings, it would be incredibly stupid to assume that the word "Physics" was interchangeable with the word "Buildings". However, this is made even more laughable by the fact we were largely talking about definitions and the difference between these two things was highlighted several times. I think I've told you this before, but you are awful at making assumptions. You should probably stop. And as previously stated, gender refers to the social and cultural aspects of maleness and femaleness. I have already defined this ten or twenty times for you. I am worried about you. |
"It is not dismissing that biology plays some role in various aspects"
according to the quote this is in response to if I was a man I could at this moment in time choose to identify as a woman with my penis, my full beard, etc etc etc
since " it is hypocritical for any self-identified feminist to use “biology” and “body parts” arguments in their attempts to dismiss trans women"
do you agree with that? if not how am I wrong?
"As such, any assertion by society or even a doctor is typically unable to see the full picture of an individual's biology to make their conclusion."
so therefore the only option left is for the person to identify themself as what they are(man, woman, sheep, ox, lion, etc etc etc), regardless of biology since biology is societies way of classifying things?
do you agree with that? if not how am I wrong?
another quote I want your opinion on is this one
""No, Trans Women Are NOT ‘Biologically Male""
"I have already defined maleness+femaleness for you"
look stop bringing this into this conversation, it has nothing to do with what is being discussed here, the relevant terms here are gender and presumably sex
"That said, your assumption was ridiculously dumb and unnecessary."
well I'm letting go of all of my presumptions when it comes to this topic to understand your perspective, so I let you have free reign with what things mean so i can see where you are going with your reasoning
"I think I've told you this before, but you are awful at making assumptions. "
as I've repeated just now, you brought these terms that have nothing to do with the topic at hand into discussion about gender so naturally it seemed like you were substituting them in for gender
" I am worried about you."
I should be worried about you, but all that's left is apathy and a deep deep curiosity
