If "gender" ("femininity" and "masculinity") is biological because of sexual dimorphism, then why are we fighting against "gender" when things like having muscles are biologically "masculine" and things like being short are biologically "feminine"?

submitted by Nohope from (self.GenderCritical)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Nohope[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I didn't get to see your comment in my other thread before you deleted it :((, is it okay if you could send it again? I'm just curious even if it's graphic and wish the comment was not deleted, or send the comment you removed via private messages on saidit pretty please? If you're more comfortable with private messages, thank you my friend <3

[–]vitunrotta 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Baiting much? :D Who are you really, some aggravated Reddit TiM moderator that cannot comprehend WOMEN may want to talk amongst themselves about things that apply to them... because of their biology?

Good luck. We are not the haters. Your little cutesy heart signs here and there won't fool anyone, either. Back to your own sunshiny rainbow world, shoo shoo ◕ᴗ◕

[–]Nohope[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Eh, I'm a female, you're talking to a human with a vagina here. I'm saying the point of GC is we have a biological sex and we can talk about the biological sex. But that we are not supposed to follow the roles that come with the biological sex, just because girls/women have vaginas, it doesn't mean girls/women should be short, have no muscles, have "smooth" skin, have less body hair, like pink, wear dresses, wear make up, be nurturing, have big boobs, etc.

And same for men, doesn't mean males/men should be aggressive, tall, etc.

But when you say a man that is short, has high pitched voice, etc is "feminine" you are saying the qualities he has are the qualities women have which means you're saying women should be a certain way like be shorter than men and if a man is short, etc he's being like a woman which is what TRAs argue

[–]vitunrotta 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

So you do not understand the very idea of gender critical at all, then. Glad you managed to at least admit that. Please, go back to some site that speaks in a way a 13-year-old is doing "critical thinking."

I'm outta this "conversation," good luck with your next endeavour of trying to bait someone to get them talk badly about you. :) All the best, pusipusi.

[–]tuesday 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It was just along the lines of... I grew up on a farm and we grew and butchered our own food. I am no stranger to the practical realities of putting meat on the table. Which can sound pretty graphic to people who never had that experience. So when people trot out that "I am a woman therefore everything I do is performed in a womanly way" I think... wow, when i cut the head off that baby lamb, and when I changed the tractor tire, and mucked out the chicken coop, and did all those other chores which must be done when you live on a farm, I did them in the exact same way that my DAD taught me.

who knew he was performing femininity when he killed and dressed all those deer! :P All kidding aside, you already know that killing and gutting deer is not what is meant by "performing femininity". Femininity is just an idea in a man's head when he thinks about the submissive qualities he prefers to see in women.

And then to make matters worse, women come along and normalize that word, to ourselves and each other, as if it is ever a neutral act to contribute to our own oppression. It's not a neutral word. It's a sexist word, and it's purpose is to normalize the male gaze. (Same thing for "masculinity". It's just an idea in a man's head regarding acceptable male behavior.)

Anyhoo, your other post on the subject received more positive responses and I had noticed (at least when I first read it) that really nobody had twigged the problems with your question. To have no one more experienced gently explain the problems with that post, was disheartening. This one, you're still conflating bio sex with [an incorrect definition of gender] but at least some people are explaining the problems.

Extremely sorry if my comment comes across as patronizing!! Discussions surrounding bio sex/gender/transgenderism can get confusing very quickly, and entire meanings can be not just altered but completely lost and contradictory if someone isn't looking specifically for those traps. We've all been there, is what i'm trying to say.

[–]tuesday 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You didn't ask and so this is yet another potentially patronizing comment... but! :D I offer it in an attempt for these convos to be less confusing. Whenever you see anybody use the word "gender" in a sentence, mentally replace that word with either "biological sex" or "sexist stereotypes", whichever one seems more appropriate/what the speaker was trying to convey.

As soon as you do that, you will notice that transactivists (and others new to gc) will constantly contradict themselves. Oftentimes in the same sentence. The difference, once this conflation is pointed out, is that gc people stop doing it. :P Transactivists, otoh, never stop cos the ensuring confusion IS their goal.