Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Of all hills to die on that ruin your reputation and legacy, why this one? I just don't get it.
I am a gen x cis heterosexual white male.
Transexuality is strange and foreign to me. I don't understand it. This gives me exactly zero right to take any stand against it. I'd say it gives me less right to express an opinion as how could I be knowledgeable on something I've just admitted I don't understand?
Let people live and go enjoy your billions.
She's so transparently working backwards from her original knee jerk judgement on her views on gender. I've never understood why people feel the need to die on this hill, change is scary sure, but it's not THAT big a deal is it?
It’s hard and it hurts. Self improvement, especially when you’ve been publicly vocal, requires humbling yourself. It involves accepting shame. And it sounds like in her case it involves reprocessing some trauma. I know who I choose to be, but on a much lesser scale I’ve met plenty like her. Folks who make the choice not to reevaluate their beliefs
I am not sure that just because someone produces sperm vs eggs delineates them as male vs female. You could produce sperm but have endocrinological phenotypes (driven by genes) affect your physiology, so it wouldn’t make sense to keep insisting that one is male then.
Also, how does this definition take into account intersex people who produce both types of eggs? They’re a man? Or woman? What subcriteria would you use to define them, and then why wouldn’t you use that same subcriteria on single-cell producers?
At a socio-political and cultural level, it seems useless to worry about how someone’s sex is defined. There’s no purpose served other than to create a class of people who can conveniently be othered and used as a means to distract from people who are truly damaging to society—the greedy and resource hoarders.
Cissexism often relies on denying the realities of intersex bodies. Or underplaying how common they are.
The reality is biological sex is clustered bimodal traits.
At a fundamental level her argument appears to be "I define biological sex and gender as the same thing, no other definition may exist".
and she's using only one characteristic that can be used to determine sex when it doesnt even work alone (other characteristics have to be met, and even if most of them are met, theres probably still exceptions cause biology is fun like that)
I am saying that sex is not necessarily binary either.
Sorry, I didn't mean to take away from your point at all, you're very much undermining her entire argument.
No apologies needed, I was just clarifying what I meant ^^
the title confuses me. umm... don't you think Elon would find most of us insufferable?
I doubt he even thinks of us at all.
hence the keyword "would"
I doubt he even would think of us at all.
Lol. Normally Elon just posts cringe that isnt funny in any way. But this is hilarious. "I love your transphobia, but have you tried thinking about literally anything else?" Like he wants her to start posting great replacement shit
man i love this comment i wish lemmy had awards
Awards are just bespoke emoji. You can still react to a comment with a picture or emoji if you want.
IMO your comment, actually expressing explicit and specific approval, is worth more than, like... a picture of a little whale with money coming out of its blowhole, or whatever.
But it doesn't make your comment glow/move around/whatever the fuck awards did
🤣🤩💯✨😸❤️🧠🫀👀👁️👄👁️👍🙌🤟💆🫅🍃🔥🌋🌈🌠🐳🍑🍆🚨🏆🎖️🥇
Jesus, it's way more dehumanizing to be thought of only in relation to checks notes Large Gametes than it is to simply accept that people of the same gender can be born with different bits.
It's even worse than that. Individuals are a vessel for those gametes, not the gametes themselves. I'm sorry, but sperm aren't fucking people Robert Rowling. You aren't your cum or your period. Inhaling pollen during spring isn't killing trees.
Joanne Galbraith's conservative gender ideology values genes and bloodlines more than people. Living a good life doesn't matter, only reproducing like e coli.
Phobes want the world to make sense because they think it'll fill the emptiness in their soul. It'll never work. The void can't be filled that way.
Who are the people you're talking about?
Joanne Rowling has released books under the name Robert Galbraith, and the poster above has mixed up the names for humourous effect.
Also Robert Galbraith Heath was a psychiatrist who was a big proponent of conversion therapy for queer people. Probably nothing to do with why Rowling chose that name...
I always thought it was a way to stay relevant, cause she cant think of any more film franchises to copy, but clearly its been an issue for a while.
So as a likley post menopausal human. JK Rowling no longer belongs to the 'sex class woman' and likely has no 'sex class'.
Given she spends like 80% of her free time talking shit about a marginalized minority, she also has no class in general
Nice
Fuck that's a great burn.
"But I could in the past" or "I was meant to" or some other contrived bullshit that gets the end result she wants.
Biologist here. The main problem with this argument is that Rowling is trying to win her argument through scientizing, and is not only doing it in an inept way, but in a way that’s completely ironic.
She’s invoking biology, but infortunately she’s adopting an approach that incorporates a high school level of biology. When we start teaching science, we start with highly simplified presentations of the major topics, then build both in breadth and depth from there. If you really want to get down the rabbit hole of sex determination (and multiple definitions of genetic and phenotypical “sex”), you really need to get into molecular biology, genetics, and developmental biology. She’s been advised of this multiple times by multiple experts, so at this point it’s willful ignorance.
The painfully ironic part is that she’s relying on an area where she has no expertise in order to make her point, while ignoring the fact that, as a world-known literary figure, she should know that the applicable part of the definition of “woman” is linguistic and semiotic - which is to say it’s cultural. The definition of “woman” was different in the 1940s South, among the 17th century pilgrims, the Algonquin tribes, cultures throughout sub-equatorial Africa, and so on.
Sorry if this question seems stupid, but you seem to really know what you're talking about.
My understanding is that the main issues TERFs have is protecting women's spaces, and that by having a vague or arbitrary definition of womanhood it erodes those spaces.
I personally would like to see a society that's far less focused on gender and minimises that kind of segregation outside of medical necessity. But I know that's quite extreme and I don't have a "perfect" solution, assuming we're going to keep things like women's only gyms, domestic violence shelters, and professional sports.
Judging based on "passing" is clearly transphobic and ignores any kind of intersex/non-binary presentation. As well as some masculine featured afab women somehow failing. And basing on biology is clearly flawed. So if it's not too much trouble what would your suggestion be?
The definition of “woman” was different in the 1940s South, among the 17th century pilgrims, the Algonquin tribes, cultures throughout sub-equatorial Africa, and so on.
Can you give an example? Not trying to be a bigot, just curious.
here's one example for you (click here) exploring igbo gender norms
here's a second report that's worth reading too (click here)
i don't have much knowledge about the other cultures suggested, others can provide info for those
How large do gametes have to be to be considered large?
Are you a woman?? SHOW ME THE GAMETES!
Probably larger than pollen
I mean human gametes aren't very large compared to chicken gametes.
BEHOLD! ROWLING'S WOMEN! Throws chicken