When we classify the human species, we do so along the lines of physical sex. Someone has a the big gametes and someone has the small gametes. This delineation exists independently of what any human thinks about it. It also happens to be one of the major axis of oppression in the world, because if you happen to be the XX, or the large gamete bearer, you are given the short end of the stick. This is because most societies in the human sphere are patriarchies and spend a good deal of social capital in controlling female bodies and female reproduction for the benefit of the male class. This social discrimination is based on your immutable physical sex. No amount of attempting to ‘identify” out of your sex class will work.
Let’s look at the first paragraph. A bad start already.
Man = Adult human male
Woman = Adult human female
These definitions are concise with no circularity at all. Circularity comes into play with transactivist definitions of the word ‘woman’, as their standard reply goes something like this:
A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman. (But what is a woman? – note the circularity)
I’ll need to quote specifics here:
“When human beings are grouped in any way, the only non bigoted version for how to define some group is “a person who considers themselves to belong to said group.” For example, how do you define a “soccer fan”? The only non bigoted definition would be “a person who calls themselves a soccer fan.”
Really? Is it bigoted to call people with brown hair a member of the class of people who are brunettes? Is the term ‘blonde’ bigoted for describing people with lighter yellowish hair?
It would seem that Andreas is fucking allergic to material facts. Please also consider the notion that facts do not care about your feelings Andreas, especially ones that give rise to the fatuous reasoning on display here.
“Let’s imagine some arrogant and elitist self-proclaimed soccer fans wanted to exclude some other people they dislike from soccer fandom, then they would come up with some different definition that required a “true soccer fan” to conform to a list of criteria. This would be bigotry and discrimination. The only reasonable and inclusive definition for “a soccer fan” is “whoever calls themselves such.” The same goes also for words like “man” and “woman.” A woman is a person who considers themselves to be a woman.”
Categories exist. Human sexual dimorphism exist. You can’t handwave this away because of your personal feelings on the subject, furthermore after you misidentify an actual definition of what a woman is, you make a shitty analogy and end with a circular argument. Jesus.
“You cannot define a woman as “a person who has a vagina, XX chromosomes, little testosterone in her body, breasts, uses female pronouns, uses make-up, has long hair, removes body hair from her legs, wears skirts or dresses, loves pink, enjoys cooking, is submissive to her husband, is a stay-at-home mother, never attended a university.”
Once you start listing characteristics, whatever they may be, your definition is bound to become bigoted and discriminatory. Even if you pick just one criterion, like having XX chromosomes, you are bound to unfairly exclude some intersex women who have XY chromosomes but who are otherwise women and follow all the other potential criteria for what defines “a woman.”
Ahhh…yes, yes you can. Adult human female works great. Also, newsflash, categories are not fucking inclusive. Otherwise they would not be categories. Calling a box of apples and oranges -“apples”- is nonsensical. But here, here is the power we give to males and the male power of naming in society, because of male gender feels we are at the stage now where we have rules in place to call a box of oranges and apples ‘apples’ because the oranges *REEEEALY FEEL* like they are apples.
Delusional fucking insanity.
II. On Gender, Sex, and Material Facts.
“Simultaneously, TERFs abuse and discriminate me. Sorry but you don’t get to call yourself a “feminist” if you only care about some AFAB people who choose lifestyles that you endorse and you are perfectly happy to abuse all the other AFAB people who choose to live as men. I consider trans men to be men. “
So, naming biological reality is ‘abuse and discrimination’. Also, ironic as in the very next sentence a prescriptive sentiment on how one is supposed to be a feminist. This is self serving narcissism at its very core. My identity and beliefs are sacrosanct and you all out there had better comply.
Fuck. That. Noise.
“They don’t get to simultaneously do all the following: (1) call trans men “women,” (2) call themselves “feminists” and proclaim that they fight for women’s rights, (3) undermine the rights of trans men.”
1. We will continue to call ‘trans-men’ women, because it is reality.
2. We shall continue to fight for female liberation from the patriarchal strictures of society, so sorry you’ve gone full handmaiden for the gender-gods, but so be it.
3. Which rights specifically are you talking about? The ‘right’ to control how others perceive you? The ‘right’ to demand others fall in line with your subjective gender-identity? No, thank you, not today my gender totalitarian friend, women shall not take the knee to gender-feels, not today.
“Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you! You don’t get to privately believe whether I am a man or a woman based upon your visual impression of my body. If I tell you that I am a guy, you don’t get to privately think of me in any other way.”
Totalitarian thought control is never a good look.
“Fuck you! If other people’s observations about some person are more important than their own words about who they are, do I get to force the identity of an “asshole” upon you? I have made an observation that Holms is an asshole. Even if Holms doesn’t see themselves as an asshole, my observation still must be more important in determining Holms’ true identity.”
We’d have to take a look at the qualities that make up an asshole and see if Holms fit in. You know, checking out the facts and evidence to draw a conclusion… kinda like biological sex informs the role we are forced into in society. How Holms identifies is irrelevant to what Holms actually is, because Holms’s subjective feelings on the matter may be unreliable.
To summarize, in gender-feelz land if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck then obviously its a (identifies as an) ostrich.
…
“Thus Holms is an asshole, and if Holms protests and insists that he is not an asshole, well that doesn’t matter. What matters here are the observations of an outside observer rather than how Holms personally self-identifies.”
Yep. Pretty much. Because society is about interactions between people and outside of repressive forces, these interactions are a two way affair. Get used to it.