• ѕєχυαℓ ρσℓутσρє
    link
    fedilink
    English
    7
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    It’s funny, but it’s not really a rebuttal, since the claim is that it doesn’t exclude any cis women. A better rebuttal would be antinatalist women who are also born with defective ovaries. (I’m sure there’d be at least one person like that.)

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      73 months ago

      at least one person

      I recently learned that 1 in 5000 women are born entirely without a uterus.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    193 months ago

    There’s a deep insecurity in recognizing that there aren’t “objective right answers” to a lot of things. Language is not a law, it’s a negotiated thing. Being a trans man doesn’t sunder me completely from the existence of living as a girl, and there are contexts in which my “assigned” sec does matter. The fact that abortion is utterly illegal in my state is just as harmful and terrifying to me as it is to the cis women I know.

    These are people who desperately want to feel in control of the world, and the idea that they would not be able to put a person into a category based on their immediate evaluation of their sex makes them feel a loss of control. It’s attacking something of their ways of knowing, it’s an epistemological challenge that sends them reeling.

    With lesbians - it’s the gold star lesbian types. They find joy in their identities as lesbians, which is great, but they treat penis in vagina sex as a contagion. It almost “horseshoe theory”‘s back into sounding like conservative Christians. They squint at some actually good critiques of porn and the way that human sexuality is marketed, and turn into a Holy War against the Y chromosome. This is not common - but it’s a very marked type of pathology. The TERFs are the type to actually be manhaters - to post things like “it’s a girl or it’s an abortion.”

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      13 months ago

      Is that really common among terfs?

      I’ve seen some truly toxic female tictokers where every second video is about how men are the worst and we don’t need them for anything and I was wondering how someone gets to that point.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        33 months ago

        Often by an instance or history of abuse and lacking the tools to cope in a healthy manner, so they protect themselves in hate.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Yeah - usually it is motivated by trauma. There’s a few that just get radicalized online, but when you do consider how it’s 1 in 4, or 1 in 3… it does make sense.

          A lot of TERFism is this frustrated sense of disempowerment, and they seek power by placing themselves in the hierarchy above trans women. Real radical feminism - like not Mary Daly and Janice Raymond’s delusions but Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon, rejects this idea that the Y chromosome or “maleness” is inherently evil while recognizing the systems of oppression patriarchy makes us navigate.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    53 months ago

    A woman is one of those things where know you one when you see one. Doesn’t have to be any more complex than that.

    Like Jiminy Cricket said, “Let your conscience be your guide”

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      203 months ago

      That’s what I initially thought, too, but there are people who identify as a woman who 100% look like a man to me. It’s rare, but it does happen, and I’m not going to argue with them about it.

      If you say you’re a woman, then you’re a woman, and it shouldn’t be any more complex than that.

  • LustyArgonian
    link
    fedilink
    English
    343 months ago

    There’s hormonal, chromosomal, and gamete definitions of biological woman/man and you’ll want to be specific about which youre referencing and why it is even relevent for the text.

    Hormonal woman with XY (“male”) chromosomes and no eggs: Complete Androgen Insensitivity

    Chromosomal woman with no eggs and low hormones: Swyer Syndrome (born without ovaries)

    Men who have eggs: Chimeras, probably, and this guy: https://www.yahoo.com/news/chinese-man-shocked-learn-ovaries-202311718.html

  • qaz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    63 months ago

    They said “without excluding” not “without including”

    • JackbyDev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      83 months ago

      Oh, believe me, they don’t want this egg selling man to be called a woman.

      • qaz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        23 months ago

        I know, but that’s on them. They should’ve been more specific.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    303 months ago

    “capability of holding eggs” covers the vast majority of humankind. Hands are useful like that.

    • kamenLady.
      link
      fedilink
      English
      14
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Born with the intention to chew bubblegum & Rock n’ Roll.

      • Sundray
        link
        fedilink
        English
        33 months ago

        I was born with the intention to be wild, but I got busy and haven’t had the time.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      393 months ago

      I think its meant sort of as physical intention aka the body doesn’t have the ability to “hold eggs” (jfc) yet but will try to develop the capability in the future. A sneaky way to try and include infertile cis women but it still excludes many of them as there are various reasons for infertility. Interestingly the phrasing also excludes all women post menopause but that’s to be expected given the amount of representation those usually get (the amount being zero).

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        14
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Also post-hysterectomy if it includes the ovaries. Sorry bitch, still a woman.

        Personally my definition of a woman is anyone subject to misogyny.

        I suppose it’s wrong, because attacks on transmen are also rooted in misogyny, but that’s the misogynists’ fault.

        For the religious: “Sometimes God puts a soul into a body that doesn’t match. The soul is sacred, and until it can be released from the body permanently, we owe it to those souls to recognize and help them. God doesn’t make mistakes, it’s us He’s testing.”

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          33 months ago

          I don’t agree with it, but the reason this religious argument (and most challenges of religion) falls flat, is because, to the true believer, their God is infallible, and so the idea of God making a mistake like that is on direct conflict with their core beliefs.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            33 months ago

            Christians famously don’t think children can get cancer or the plague, because “God doesn’t make mistakes”. Blind children and children in wheelchairs? A hoax by the devil, clearly.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            43 months ago

            As I said, it’s not a mistake, it to test us, to be sure we’re following His edicts to love one another and judge not.

            Of course to the false “believer,” hating and judging has become second nature and their “Christian” lives are the deepest blasphemy.

            But to a decent person who’s already beginning to question the false doctrine in which they’ve been raised, it opens a chink in the wall.

            • Ginny [they/she]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              33 months ago

              Why does God need to test us? Doesn’t he already know whether or not we’d pass?

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                33 months ago

                I don’t disagree with you myself, but remember the apple? According to Godologists that was just the first of thousands of tests, including your impure thoughts last week. It’s kinda his thing. So I see no problem using it to get through to them.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  2
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Wasn’t even an apple. It was literally “the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”

                  So, basically, before eating that fruit, Eve could not have possibly known right from wrong. So how is it her fault?

                  Why would god make that tree in the first place? Why would he make that tree, and then insert it into his perfect paradise? Why would he make the tree, insert it into his perfect paradise, but then forbid the humans from eating the fruit, and thus gaining the understanding of good and evil? Why wouldn’t he want humans to have that knowledge? Why would he allow the serpent (who never told Eve to eat the fruit, btw, he just said it was something that was possible for her to do) to exist there in the first place?

                  And lastly, if he’s all-knowing, why the fuck would he be surprised by any of this?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          33 months ago

          Technically, it doesn’t even need to include the ovaries if the bigots are defining the womb as the ‘holding eggs’ bit.

          Jesus, we need better mandatory biology classes. (That’s aimed at the people defining women as egg holders, not you.)

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        5
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        You’re right, and that whole argument is sidestepping the fact what they really want is a separation between men and women so that they can attempt to force a safe space for women that appeals to their sensibilities of women being born weaker than men with lower bone density and testosterone while not allowing glaring loopholes. Which is how they really view women as an infantile subset of our species that needs protection from a minority of opportunists that would take advantage of them.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        103 months ago

        Women are born with their eggs, but that’s not true for women who are born without ovaries, which has got to be possible, so this is a dumb definition anyway

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    13 months ago

    Do republicans think we’re gineapigs? Born completely formed with no developmental years?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      33 months ago

      4 x 3 containing 30 eggs = 360 x 6 layers per pallet = 2160 x 4 pallets = 8640 / 12 per dz = 720 dozen eggs x $5 a dz = $3600. Considering these are brown eggs, they may be selling as free range organic bullshit for like $10 / dz so maybe $7200.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          23 months ago

          Or if you sell eggs for $140 / dozen.

          And to think I was upset about my eggs costing about $3.50 / dozen with treats included. Oh well, the little raptors are fun.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      163 months ago

      I think she already knew, why else would she mention the people born with the intent of holding eggs (whatever that means).

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        43 months ago

        But what’s between the goalposts legs? If it’s got legs then it’s somehow my business what’s going on between them.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    153 months ago

    Look man I know that my taxonomy doesn’t work… but have you considered that it was created with the intent to work?