theonewhoclocks:lesbian-lizards: author-cypress-butane:lesbian-lizards: author-cypress-butane:opabin
theonewhoclocks:lesbian-lizards: author-cypress-butane:lesbian-lizards: author-cypress-butane:opabiniawillreturn: author-cypress-butane: opabiniawillreturn: author-cypress-butane: opabiniawillreturn: author-cypress-butane: opabiniawillreturn: author-cypress-butane: radfemsafe: So, in your opinion, what is the answer to ‘what is a woman’? an adult human female. that’s not my opinion, it’s the definition of woman. what would you say? That reminds me of the ‘man is a featherless biped’ of Plato and Diogenes. Wholly inadequate. why is it inadequate? Doesn’t address what the essence of a woman is. It’s reductionist. Surely there is something more to being a woman that materialism. do you know how definitions work? they aren’t about the “essence” of anything. they are simply how we assign meaning to words. how is it reductionist? and what IS the “essence” of a woman? 1:13:23 I’m just a lousy poet, who loves women, including trans women. I’m not a scientist. ‘Woman is the essence’ - Kerouac. It’s not my business to tell people what they’re not allowed to be. so what if that essence doesn’t fit me? am I not a woman? is the definition of canine, a dog, reductionist because it doesn’t capture the essence of a canine? what are you even arguing? if the definition of a canine doesn’t capture the essence of a canine, it is a non-functioning definition. The ISSUE is needing to ‘capture’ human beings in narrow definitions in order to prevent them from being what they are. Yeah, you have it backwards. “Human female” is literally the only definition that encompasses the whole 50% of the population that we collectively refers to as women. It’s not narrow or reductionist at all. But when you start applying traits like “feels a womanly essence” or “behaves femininely” you exclude GNC women like myself and millions of others. I’d rather my sex be defined by its immutable biology than the sexist baggage that is society’s ever-shifting idea of “what a woman is”, because that means I can still be anything else I want in addition to my biology. What do I have ‘backwards’ - your definition, by your own explication, is what you want to decree BECAUSE it is reductionist and exclusionary. If your agenda is to exclude people’s personal experiences from an enforcement of a defintion, one can only hope you never gain authority in any medical, care profession, or in any situation where it matters to represent people fairly. ? > is what you want to decree BECAUSE it is reductionist and exclusionary No, actually, it’s the literal, global definition of women and I enforce it because it’s the most inclusive to all females. And yeah, to a lesser extent there is a personal reason in that it’s the only definition of women that includes GNC women like myself without tying the definition to shallow, sexist traits that I don’t identify with. “Human female” is the most freeing definition of “woman” possible for people like me.> if your agenda is to exclude people’s personal experiences > where it matters to represent people fairly Okay, so this is now about trans women. Of course. It always makes me laugh how privileged this tiny population of males are that they have people like you working to overhaul the entire definition of “woman” to include them while pushing out millions of other, actual women in the process. Feminism win! lmao imagine quoting kerouac, the misogynistic male wife beater, on what defines women There is nothing more than materialism, ik you love idealism and philosophies based on smoking crack but the only good foundation for any working philosophy is materialism. Otherwise is shit. -- source link