Coming From Gender Critical

submitted by [deleted] from self.Introductions

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]kissfan7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Female-specific violence and discrimination happens to women at a way larger scale than it does to men who identify as women.

Isn't that because there are a lot more regular women than than transgendered women? And I imagine normal-looking transgendered women still get harassed as much as normal women.

I suggest reading some dworkin, or lurking on tumblr radical feminist communities

Wasn't Dworkin pro-transgendered? That's the impression I get after some light Googling.

Intersex people are used to defend the idea that sex is fluid etc etc, which is an insult to both intersex people and reproductive dimorphism in species.

How is it an insult? Don't most (or at least a lot) of intersex people not identify as men or women?

Blurring the definition of who is and who isn't abused based on concrete characteristics is dangerous for those who are. JKR did a good bit on this

Rowling mentions her support of MS research and how seeing transgendered women as women might make it harder. But wouldn't intersex people also make that research harder. I mean, they're both such small segments of the population that I doubt it would effect that much. If they do, just study regular men and regular women.

And it's not a word salad. I fortunately only had to look up a couple things (namely remind myself who Dworkin is and looking up "cluster b".)

[–]ghostraider 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I won't answer regarding radfem because I do not consider myself a feminist of any kind nor I have read a lot. But regarding intersex conditions, for them to exist you need a male-female binary. For example the most typical female intersex condition is being born without an uterus, now every male is born without an uterus but that doesn't make them intersex.

[–]kissfan7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Not every male is born without a uterus.

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/persistent-mullerian-duct-syndrome

And that's not what binary means.

[–]ghostraider 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Pfff, how to prove you have no arguments: getting into technicalities with meaning of words and rare cases.

Again proving for this conditions to exist you need male/female. So no female can be diagnosed with this, as no male can be diagnosed with "not having an uterus" as an intersex condition.

[–]kissfan7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Uh yeah, if we're discussing the correct definition of a thing, we're going to "[get] into technicalities with meaning of words and rare cases".

If you want a precise definition of sex, you need to account for all kinds of intersex conditions. Don't get mad at me just because you didn't know men could be born with uteri.

[–]ghostraider 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Intersex conditions do not play a role when defining sex, that's why in your link in the first sentences it says that the condition affects males. Also I didn't define sex, I just said that intersex conditions need the framework (which I can't call binary because it is not the exact definition and will prompt you to go again "binary is not that" even though you would get what I mean) male/female to exist. You just went on being super picky with my post with something that actually supports what I said. It doesn't make me mad, I actually find amusing the need to do that.

[–]kissfan7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Why u mad, though?

[–]ghostraider 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It doesn't make me mad, I actually find amusing the need to do that.

[–]kissfan7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That’s exactly what a mad person would say.

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

That implication only goes in one direction, not the opposite :D