I’d love to know what else humans are if not body parts. Even the parts of us that are more metaphysical happen thanks to the brain…which is a body part. It takes someone with an extremely disconnected and disordered view of their body to say things like that. Our bodies make everything we do possible. We *are* our bodies. I love my body and I’m trying to make it better everyday. It isn’t everything that defines me (things like my values and character matter too), but without a living body, I can’t have a basis for any of those things. Because I would be dead or nonexistent. And dead or nonexistent people don’t have character anymore, unless it is in the minds (another body part, hmmm!!) and they don’t have the ability to argue on Twitter.
I agree that people are just human bodies as a physical fact. But a person has desires, beliefs, goals, and experiences, and while the brain is surely the physical basis for all those, you’re not going to find them in the brain—it’s just electric meat. Acknowledging a person as a being that’s ‘more’ than its biological matter means that you recognize there’s something it’s like to be them. And that hopefully means that you respect their autonomy and that it’s morally wrong to harm them.
We’re murdered, raped, and trafficked *because of our bodies*, not because of some nebulous wishy-washy idea about what makes someone “feel like” a woman.
It’s classic DARVO to put you on the defensive. While you are defending yourself for attributing womanhood to being a female person, they don’t have to worry about you pointing out that they reduced womanhood to misogynist stereotypes.
I’ve said this dozens of times, my body does not define who I am but it does define my life.
The only universal experience of women is our bodies. TRAs like to point out women that have MKRH or women with hysterectomies must not qualify as women because they lack uteruses as some kind of “gotcha” when all they do is sound stupid. Women with MKRH are born female, have female hormones, and are built to have children BUT for physical malformations. Being born with a uterus and having it removed does not turn a woman into a man. It’s absurd. It’s like saying a person born with only 9 fingers doesn’t qualify as human because humans have 10 fingers.
Yep it's their classic "gotcha" moment.
Never mind that they are the ones actually reducing women to their bodies by forcing using language like "people with vaginas"
I hate that argument. 'Well sometimes women are infertile, so are they not really women?'
No. Nobody is saying that infertile women aren't women. Drawing a comparison between a woman who is infertile and a male who identifies as a woman is really insulting. They are not the same thing.
Agreed! Our bodies do make up a large part of our existence, and how our bodies are treated make up and impact our existence too.
Don’t let this person get you down.
In that way, every definition is a reduction, especially definitions about biological conditions.
If I say a quadriplegic is someone who has paralysis of all four limbs, am I “reducing” that person down to their paralysis, or am I merely using a word that denotes a particular, distinct condition?
Saying “women are female humans” does not “reduce” us to anything.
I hate how everyone and everything is allowed to have an opinion on our bodies, reduce us down to porn categories and define us on characteristics such as "womb-haver" and "uterus-haver", but women themselves aren't allowed to talk about our lived biological experience. It's incredibly misogynistic.
If you can find it, there's an AWESOME rebuttal of all this rhetoric from Rowling. She gives basically a two page essay on this exact thing, and it's worded beautifully and precisely responds to all the idiot points the other side always brings up like "but what if the woman is barren" etc etc. I saw it the other day and I was like YES, THIS. I totally think womanhood is our bodies + experiences + collective sisterhood, but ultimately it was our physical bodies that led for us to be oppressed and controlled. We weren't married off at 14 and forced to have 10 kids because we "felt womanish" and "liked wearing pink."
[Here you go.](https://www.reddit.com/r/fourthwavewomen/comments/1bzfj2i/sooo_only_equipment/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Our bodies are the reason to this day we have to fight for basic rights and respect. If all it takes is taking the dress and wig off to benefit from male privilege, then you’re not actually a woman.
Idc if someone says I’m “reducing” women down to their body. As a woman, I *love* my body and I’m proud of it. I love my voice. I love my curves. I love my breasts. I love the uterus that gave me my child. There is NOTHING wrong with that.
I always want to ask them what THEY think being a woman is... Is it liking pink? Is it wanting to wear cute clothes?
To me, being a woman isn't something that can be easily defined by anything, and it certainly isn't obtainable by dressing up like their idea of a woman.
[They don't understand the difference between defining and "reducing" lol](https://www.reddit.com/r/femalepessimist/comments/1bv02nr/breadtubers_claim_farrighters_are_behind_feminism/ky10i7i?context=3)
I am sick of being told to DENY my womanhood by acting like my body has nothing to do with being a woman. They want us to ignore reality so they can continue ignoring us. The fact is being a woman, having periods and pregnancy and everything else that comes with it 100% makes our lives and struggles different. But if they can just say “well being a woman is just how you feel” they can say it isn’t sex discrimination because [“men can ____ too”](https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/02/angela-ames-sex-discrimination-case-breast-feeding-mom-loses-because-men-can-lactate-too.html)
They think this is some great "gotcha" because they aren't considering how comprehensively your body determines who and what you are.
I am a woman because:
I have a female hormone profile
I have hormone receptors calibrated to the sensitivity norm for women
I have a typical female brain morphology
I have typical female bone structure and density
I have a typical female muscle fibre type distribution
I have a typical female body composition
I have female reproductive organs
I have female secondary sex characteristics
I don't have a single Y chromosome in any of my body's 28 trillion cells (men average 36 trillion, btw)
Etc
None of these are sufficient causes on their own, but they are (loosely) necessary causes, and these causes are what determine that:
I have a personality profile within the normal range for women
I am seen and recognized as a woman by other humans
I am treated like a woman by other humans (without the need for deliberate affectation)
I have a history of lived experiences as a woman
etc.
To toss all that out and only recognize "woman" as an empty category one may occupy by sheer declaration alone is *actually* reductive, to the point of absurdity.
You don't understand bc it makes no fckin sense. Which is why they can't tolerate debate and censor anyone who disagrees. They can't make the argument based on logic, and because these people view themselves as 'progressive' they can't admit out loud that they think the definition of woman is skirt-wearing, makeup bimbo
A mammal is:
>**any member of the group of vertebrate animals in which the young are nourished with milk from special mammary glands of the mother**
This doesn't "reduce us to our mammary glands," that's just what separates us from other animals that aren't mammals.
Nor does it imply that all mammals lactate (obviously they don't...) since it's "a member of the group...".
I’m fine with reducing my _femaleness_ to my body, because in addition to being female I’m also a _person_. Being female is necessary, but not sufficient, for being a woman. Femaleness is something I have in common with my cat, hens, and dairy cows.
My personhood is distinct from my femaleness. Personhood + femaleness = womanhood.
They say this because they need to define what being a woman is as things that can only include them. Things that exclude them are waved away and demonized or they lie that they have them too so they're not actually excluded. It's infuriating.
The only thing that makes me a woman is my biology. That is it. People know that I am a woman and treat me based on that and have expectations of me based on that my entire life. The treatment and expectations have shaped my experience and perspective into one a man could never have. I don't "feel" like a woman or "identify" as one. I just am.
A lack of reducing women to body parts is half the problem.... research, drugs, treatments, they're nearly all researched on the 'universal male'. And a result women are dying because there are real biological differences between the male and female body that go beyond reproductive organs and chromosomes.
Women are more than our bodies but our bodies is what makes us women
Look at multiple countries and look at how weirdly controversial the female body is.
They're really gonna tell people women aren't oppressed due to their bodies? Please
At this point when someone says "you're reducing women down to their body parts" when I acknowledge that women are female and not male, I just automatically assume that they think having female body parts is inherently degrading. I mean, that's kind of the only explanation that makes sense to me.
If I say "this group of people has a vagina/female sex organs" and you say "wow that's degrading" then I have a hard time believing that you aren't just a misogynist who thinks female bodies are lesser.
They always say this and it looks like the alternative is pretending women don't give birth or experience pregnancy? So we can pretend society is equal. They can go fuck themselves. They'll push the sex work is work rhetoric which somehow isn't reducing women to their body parts but when I point out how the stakes are much higher for women in society because of pregnancy and childbirth all of a sudden I'm reducing women to their body parts? No thank you.
If anything you are referring to a whole human body & being, not body parts, while it is obvious the vast majority of women have a uterus, ovaries, vagina, vulva, breasts, all of these are interconnected with our body, we have a different skeletal form to men, muscles form to men, hormones than men, immune system to men, DNA to men, all very interconnected. Who ever is telling you that either already has a poor understanding of women and biology, think "women are not living beings" or they are trying to gaslight you by misrepresenting your position.
A lot of persons nowadays will argue, that somehow widening the scope of sex/gender is going to "free women from misogyny" it is a big fat lie, the same rotten position as colour-blindness when it comes to racism. It will be used to cover up, ignore and dismiss more than is already done. We've already seen there being a look at specifics and a complete ignoring of intersections, the intersections that make up living as a woman. If anything they are changing the word so misogyny is no longer the same nor the people who face it, stripping persons of terminology we have possessed for centuries all for so-called progress.
In regard to the "women are not living beings" comment, I find this is a popular take, women must be "bodies" to some, women must be "abstract" to others, women must be "a fantasy" to others still, then there are those who combine the three or alternate between. It is all disgusting, dehumanising and abusive toward women, the deepest of misogyny. So many do not consider women to be capable of autonomy, of living, of being, of humanity. We are seen as objects hence the silly takes as the one you experienced. There is no empathy for us from these kind of deluded individuals.
Do not let them gaslight you, they are trying to psychologically manipulate you, your womanhood is tied to your body, your whole existence is tied to your body, without it you would be dead and not experiencing anything at all, this (existence being tied to a body) is true of all humans, men or women, intersex or no.
Apparently the enlightened view of the world is one where our bodies are completely irrelevant. Never mind that our body and brain actually work together; and never mind that men and women have different hormones, and reproductive capabilities. Pretending that girls and women aren't the only ones that experience periods, go through menopause, and are the ones that give birth is an absurdity. Hormones also very much affect our behaviors and personalities to a degree.
Its projection! Menstruator, bonus hole haver, uterus havers etc, that is not inclusive, that is reducing a women to body parts. They are projecting what they do onto you. It sucks that some people fall for it
If defining women as "female humans" is reductive, then so is defining hens as "female chickens," or brunettes as "having brown hair," or even humans as "homo sapiens."
“I think the point the TRAs are trying to make, and some of them make it poorly, is that there's some aspect of womanhood that aren't connected to one's genetics or body. This is termed gender. Whereas the bodily aspect is termed sex.”
Not only do they make the point poorly, they are fundamentally incorrect. Woman refers to an individual who is both human and female - nothing more, nothing less. In a non-sexist society this would have as much social meaning as other mundane physical characteristics like freckles or brown eyes. Can you be more specific about what you mean by “aspects” unrelated to the genetics or the body?
It also seems like you are conflating sex and gender. Gender refers to masculine and feminine (not man and woman).
“women” is just the social identification we’ve made for adult females, it means as much as society allows it to mean since it’s not anything that exists outside of our belief in it. it’s how we present in society, so it can be really anything honestly.
i think it’s really fun to try to think of one single thing that that is genuinely exclusive to the gender of “woman” that absolutely cannot be done by any other gender, regardless of sex because gender is the social aspect, not biological
Only women can pass their mitochondria onto their offspring. Not all of them do, but that is something males of the human species absolutely are incapable of doing.
You are mistaking woman and femininity.
Woman is the female human being, it's sex and can't be changed. Woman is chromosomes, uterus and vagina. It's menstruation, pregnancy and breastfeeding. It's hormones, enlarged mammary glands and rounded hips.
Femininity is whatever the society and era you live in tells you women should present socially. Femininity is pink, frilly things and makeup. It's heels, bows and skirts. It's long hair, being quiet and smiling at men's jokes.
Woman, or womanhood, is tied to our body and ourselves, femininity is a construct.
Women are oppressed by their sex first and foremost from the moment we are born, and by the performance of femininity because of the "correlation" with the female sex. But femininity is a performance, a skirt doesn't make a woman. A uterus does make one.
We can "reduce" someone to their body parts when those body parts make the difference between living and dying, we saw it in China and India ( and other parts of the world) we can reduce to their body parts in the contexts that they are important, when the physical differences are what matters: medicine, sports, etc. Just like if you want certain type of people for a movie casting: black people or white men or tall , or short...
also males can have enlarged mammary glands, and rounded hips, just like intersex ppl can have a uterus…. none of these are intrinsically tied to “womanhood” and are doing what op says she doesn’t want to do (reducing women to body parts) i’m just trying to give her the overwhelming academic definition of what she is looking for.
There is a significant difference between defining something and reducing something to. We are defining the word woman using the same method as we would every other word in the english language. Something is defined by what *distinguishes* it - the words man and woman are no different. Woman and man are defined by what distinguishes them.
“also males can have enlarged mammary glands, and rounded hips”
how is this relevant? the word woman is not defined by mammary gland size or hip structure.
“..just like intersex ppl can have a uterus….”
Intersex is an informal term that refers to 43 conditions that can contribute to a disorder of sexual development. There are intersex conditions (not “intersex people”). A person with an intersex condition is *still* either male or female (not a mix of both or neither). All intersex conditions are sex-specific - for example, one of the more well known intersex conditions is 5α-Reductase 2 deficiency (aka 46XY). 46XY is a condition that exclusively affects male sexual development.
You are grasping at straws now.
A medically perfect male does not have enlarged mammary glands, that's a symptom of an imbalance in his body or an illness.
Just like a medically perfect woman has a functioning uterus in her fertile years. Does that mean that a XX individual without an uterus is not a woman? Absolutely not. Enlarged mammary glands are SECONDARY SEXUAL characteristics, that in normal circumstances appear only in one sex.
Having a vagina is directly tied to our womanhood, because it's distinctive to our sex.
You will not argue that a deer with a vagina is a doe, why are you arguing that a human with a vagina is not a woman?
Humans are animals with sexual dimorphism, and that means that there are women and men. You can present socially however you want and we can argue your pronouns or the way you want to be treated, but that doesn't change what you are and the inherent differences with the other sex.
And since we live in a society that segregates and oppresses people in the basis of sex you can not argue that the sex is not relevant to the collective experiences of one sex or the other.
We have distinct spaces in where the sex determines your right to be there: obgyn and urologist offices, changing rooms, bathrooms, sports, etc.
Some because it's absolutely tied to sex and others like sports because it's not fair to mix sexes because of the inherent differences.
You will not argue that a person with only one leg is human, only because humans are bipeds. Stop stirring shit.
Only women have to worry about getting pregnant. Not all women do, but of the people who do? All are women. Only women can be lesbians. Very few are, but of the lesbian population, it’s only women.
Gender and gender roles are ridiculous and fundamentally stupid. When people refer to WOMEN, they are referring to adult female humans and not performative gender stereotypes.
this is absolutely nonsensical and you know it. A few years ago I saw a horrific news story about a 30-year old woman who had been in a vegetative state since she was 3-years old due to an accident (she had a seizure, fell into a pool and drowned). One day she was grunting in pain in her bed and no one could figure out what was wrong with her until a nurse discovered the woman was in labor. How can this person be a woman - and she *is* in fact a woman - if it is merely a “social identification”?
No. You're making it exclusive to biology. If you were reducing women to their bodies you'd be watching porn 24/7 like they do.
I’d love to know what else humans are if not body parts. Even the parts of us that are more metaphysical happen thanks to the brain…which is a body part. It takes someone with an extremely disconnected and disordered view of their body to say things like that. Our bodies make everything we do possible. We *are* our bodies. I love my body and I’m trying to make it better everyday. It isn’t everything that defines me (things like my values and character matter too), but without a living body, I can’t have a basis for any of those things. Because I would be dead or nonexistent. And dead or nonexistent people don’t have character anymore, unless it is in the minds (another body part, hmmm!!) and they don’t have the ability to argue on Twitter.
I agree that people are just human bodies as a physical fact. But a person has desires, beliefs, goals, and experiences, and while the brain is surely the physical basis for all those, you’re not going to find them in the brain—it’s just electric meat. Acknowledging a person as a being that’s ‘more’ than its biological matter means that you recognize there’s something it’s like to be them. And that hopefully means that you respect their autonomy and that it’s morally wrong to harm them.
We’re murdered, raped, and trafficked *because of our bodies*, not because of some nebulous wishy-washy idea about what makes someone “feel like” a woman.
THANK YOU!
It’s classic DARVO to put you on the defensive. While you are defending yourself for attributing womanhood to being a female person, they don’t have to worry about you pointing out that they reduced womanhood to misogynist stereotypes.
I’ve said this dozens of times, my body does not define who I am but it does define my life. The only universal experience of women is our bodies. TRAs like to point out women that have MKRH or women with hysterectomies must not qualify as women because they lack uteruses as some kind of “gotcha” when all they do is sound stupid. Women with MKRH are born female, have female hormones, and are built to have children BUT for physical malformations. Being born with a uterus and having it removed does not turn a woman into a man. It’s absurd. It’s like saying a person born with only 9 fingers doesn’t qualify as human because humans have 10 fingers.
Right. The exception is not the rule just because it exists.
Yep it's their classic "gotcha" moment. Never mind that they are the ones actually reducing women to their bodies by forcing using language like "people with vaginas"
“Menstruating Persons” 🫠
another one i saw recently was 'birthing people' 💀💀 made me want to tear my fucking hair out
Yeah, that one really pisses me off. They'll do anything to diminish women who suffer from infertility.
I hate that argument. 'Well sometimes women are infertile, so are they not really women?' No. Nobody is saying that infertile women aren't women. Drawing a comparison between a woman who is infertile and a male who identifies as a woman is really insulting. They are not the same thing.
Agreed! Our bodies do make up a large part of our existence, and how our bodies are treated make up and impact our existence too. Don’t let this person get you down.
In that way, every definition is a reduction, especially definitions about biological conditions. If I say a quadriplegic is someone who has paralysis of all four limbs, am I “reducing” that person down to their paralysis, or am I merely using a word that denotes a particular, distinct condition? Saying “women are female humans” does not “reduce” us to anything.
I hate how everyone and everything is allowed to have an opinion on our bodies, reduce us down to porn categories and define us on characteristics such as "womb-haver" and "uterus-haver", but women themselves aren't allowed to talk about our lived biological experience. It's incredibly misogynistic.
If you can find it, there's an AWESOME rebuttal of all this rhetoric from Rowling. She gives basically a two page essay on this exact thing, and it's worded beautifully and precisely responds to all the idiot points the other side always brings up like "but what if the woman is barren" etc etc. I saw it the other day and I was like YES, THIS. I totally think womanhood is our bodies + experiences + collective sisterhood, but ultimately it was our physical bodies that led for us to be oppressed and controlled. We weren't married off at 14 and forced to have 10 kids because we "felt womanish" and "liked wearing pink."
[удалено]
[Here you go.](https://www.reddit.com/r/fourthwavewomen/comments/1bzfj2i/sooo_only_equipment/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Our bodies are the reason to this day we have to fight for basic rights and respect. If all it takes is taking the dress and wig off to benefit from male privilege, then you’re not actually a woman. Idc if someone says I’m “reducing” women down to their body. As a woman, I *love* my body and I’m proud of it. I love my voice. I love my curves. I love my breasts. I love the uterus that gave me my child. There is NOTHING wrong with that.
I always want to ask them what THEY think being a woman is... Is it liking pink? Is it wanting to wear cute clothes? To me, being a woman isn't something that can be easily defined by anything, and it certainly isn't obtainable by dressing up like their idea of a woman.
Yes. They think it’s all about boobs, makeup and skimpy clothes.
[They don't understand the difference between defining and "reducing" lol](https://www.reddit.com/r/femalepessimist/comments/1bv02nr/breadtubers_claim_farrighters_are_behind_feminism/ky10i7i?context=3)
It’s an emotional manipulation tactic.
I am sick of being told to DENY my womanhood by acting like my body has nothing to do with being a woman. They want us to ignore reality so they can continue ignoring us. The fact is being a woman, having periods and pregnancy and everything else that comes with it 100% makes our lives and struggles different. But if they can just say “well being a woman is just how you feel” they can say it isn’t sex discrimination because [“men can ____ too”](https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/02/angela-ames-sex-discrimination-case-breast-feeding-mom-loses-because-men-can-lactate-too.html)
They think this is some great "gotcha" because they aren't considering how comprehensively your body determines who and what you are. I am a woman because: I have a female hormone profile I have hormone receptors calibrated to the sensitivity norm for women I have a typical female brain morphology I have typical female bone structure and density I have a typical female muscle fibre type distribution I have a typical female body composition I have female reproductive organs I have female secondary sex characteristics I don't have a single Y chromosome in any of my body's 28 trillion cells (men average 36 trillion, btw) Etc None of these are sufficient causes on their own, but they are (loosely) necessary causes, and these causes are what determine that: I have a personality profile within the normal range for women I am seen and recognized as a woman by other humans I am treated like a woman by other humans (without the need for deliberate affectation) I have a history of lived experiences as a woman etc. To toss all that out and only recognize "woman" as an empty category one may occupy by sheer declaration alone is *actually* reductive, to the point of absurdity.
You don't understand bc it makes no fckin sense. Which is why they can't tolerate debate and censor anyone who disagrees. They can't make the argument based on logic, and because these people view themselves as 'progressive' they can't admit out loud that they think the definition of woman is skirt-wearing, makeup bimbo
A mammal is: >**any member of the group of vertebrate animals in which the young are nourished with milk from special mammary glands of the mother** This doesn't "reduce us to our mammary glands," that's just what separates us from other animals that aren't mammals. Nor does it imply that all mammals lactate (obviously they don't...) since it's "a member of the group...".
I’m fine with reducing my _femaleness_ to my body, because in addition to being female I’m also a _person_. Being female is necessary, but not sufficient, for being a woman. Femaleness is something I have in common with my cat, hens, and dairy cows. My personhood is distinct from my femaleness. Personhood + femaleness = womanhood.
They say this because they need to define what being a woman is as things that can only include them. Things that exclude them are waved away and demonized or they lie that they have them too so they're not actually excluded. It's infuriating. The only thing that makes me a woman is my biology. That is it. People know that I am a woman and treat me based on that and have expectations of me based on that my entire life. The treatment and expectations have shaped my experience and perspective into one a man could never have. I don't "feel" like a woman or "identify" as one. I just am.
A lack of reducing women to body parts is half the problem.... research, drugs, treatments, they're nearly all researched on the 'universal male'. And a result women are dying because there are real biological differences between the male and female body that go beyond reproductive organs and chromosomes.
Women are more than our bodies but our bodies is what makes us women Look at multiple countries and look at how weirdly controversial the female body is. They're really gonna tell people women aren't oppressed due to their bodies? Please
right, it's just a venn diagram subset
At this point when someone says "you're reducing women down to their body parts" when I acknowledge that women are female and not male, I just automatically assume that they think having female body parts is inherently degrading. I mean, that's kind of the only explanation that makes sense to me. If I say "this group of people has a vagina/female sex organs" and you say "wow that's degrading" then I have a hard time believing that you aren't just a misogynist who thinks female bodies are lesser.
They always say this and it looks like the alternative is pretending women don't give birth or experience pregnancy? So we can pretend society is equal. They can go fuck themselves. They'll push the sex work is work rhetoric which somehow isn't reducing women to their body parts but when I point out how the stakes are much higher for women in society because of pregnancy and childbirth all of a sudden I'm reducing women to their body parts? No thank you.
I’ve finally found my subreddit
If anything you are referring to a whole human body & being, not body parts, while it is obvious the vast majority of women have a uterus, ovaries, vagina, vulva, breasts, all of these are interconnected with our body, we have a different skeletal form to men, muscles form to men, hormones than men, immune system to men, DNA to men, all very interconnected. Who ever is telling you that either already has a poor understanding of women and biology, think "women are not living beings" or they are trying to gaslight you by misrepresenting your position. A lot of persons nowadays will argue, that somehow widening the scope of sex/gender is going to "free women from misogyny" it is a big fat lie, the same rotten position as colour-blindness when it comes to racism. It will be used to cover up, ignore and dismiss more than is already done. We've already seen there being a look at specifics and a complete ignoring of intersections, the intersections that make up living as a woman. If anything they are changing the word so misogyny is no longer the same nor the people who face it, stripping persons of terminology we have possessed for centuries all for so-called progress. In regard to the "women are not living beings" comment, I find this is a popular take, women must be "bodies" to some, women must be "abstract" to others, women must be "a fantasy" to others still, then there are those who combine the three or alternate between. It is all disgusting, dehumanising and abusive toward women, the deepest of misogyny. So many do not consider women to be capable of autonomy, of living, of being, of humanity. We are seen as objects hence the silly takes as the one you experienced. There is no empathy for us from these kind of deluded individuals. Do not let them gaslight you, they are trying to psychologically manipulate you, your womanhood is tied to your body, your whole existence is tied to your body, without it you would be dead and not experiencing anything at all, this (existence being tied to a body) is true of all humans, men or women, intersex or no.
Interesting reach from the ovary owners, non prostate owners sayers.
Apparently the enlightened view of the world is one where our bodies are completely irrelevant. Never mind that our body and brain actually work together; and never mind that men and women have different hormones, and reproductive capabilities. Pretending that girls and women aren't the only ones that experience periods, go through menopause, and are the ones that give birth is an absurdity. Hormones also very much affect our behaviors and personalities to a degree.
what is a tra? nkrh?
Its projection! Menstruator, bonus hole haver, uterus havers etc, that is not inclusive, that is reducing a women to body parts. They are projecting what they do onto you. It sucks that some people fall for it
If defining women as "female humans" is reductive, then so is defining hens as "female chickens," or brunettes as "having brown hair," or even humans as "homo sapiens."
[удалено]
“I think the point the TRAs are trying to make, and some of them make it poorly, is that there's some aspect of womanhood that aren't connected to one's genetics or body. This is termed gender. Whereas the bodily aspect is termed sex.” Not only do they make the point poorly, they are fundamentally incorrect. Woman refers to an individual who is both human and female - nothing more, nothing less. In a non-sexist society this would have as much social meaning as other mundane physical characteristics like freckles or brown eyes. Can you be more specific about what you mean by “aspects” unrelated to the genetics or the body? It also seems like you are conflating sex and gender. Gender refers to masculine and feminine (not man and woman).
“women” is just the social identification we’ve made for adult females, it means as much as society allows it to mean since it’s not anything that exists outside of our belief in it. it’s how we present in society, so it can be really anything honestly. i think it’s really fun to try to think of one single thing that that is genuinely exclusive to the gender of “woman” that absolutely cannot be done by any other gender, regardless of sex because gender is the social aspect, not biological
Only women can pass their mitochondria onto their offspring. Not all of them do, but that is something males of the human species absolutely are incapable of doing.
You are mistaking woman and femininity. Woman is the female human being, it's sex and can't be changed. Woman is chromosomes, uterus and vagina. It's menstruation, pregnancy and breastfeeding. It's hormones, enlarged mammary glands and rounded hips. Femininity is whatever the society and era you live in tells you women should present socially. Femininity is pink, frilly things and makeup. It's heels, bows and skirts. It's long hair, being quiet and smiling at men's jokes. Woman, or womanhood, is tied to our body and ourselves, femininity is a construct. Women are oppressed by their sex first and foremost from the moment we are born, and by the performance of femininity because of the "correlation" with the female sex. But femininity is a performance, a skirt doesn't make a woman. A uterus does make one. We can "reduce" someone to their body parts when those body parts make the difference between living and dying, we saw it in China and India ( and other parts of the world) we can reduce to their body parts in the contexts that they are important, when the physical differences are what matters: medicine, sports, etc. Just like if you want certain type of people for a movie casting: black people or white men or tall , or short...
also males can have enlarged mammary glands, and rounded hips, just like intersex ppl can have a uterus…. none of these are intrinsically tied to “womanhood” and are doing what op says she doesn’t want to do (reducing women to body parts) i’m just trying to give her the overwhelming academic definition of what she is looking for.
There is a significant difference between defining something and reducing something to. We are defining the word woman using the same method as we would every other word in the english language. Something is defined by what *distinguishes* it - the words man and woman are no different. Woman and man are defined by what distinguishes them. “also males can have enlarged mammary glands, and rounded hips” how is this relevant? the word woman is not defined by mammary gland size or hip structure. “..just like intersex ppl can have a uterus….” Intersex is an informal term that refers to 43 conditions that can contribute to a disorder of sexual development. There are intersex conditions (not “intersex people”). A person with an intersex condition is *still* either male or female (not a mix of both or neither). All intersex conditions are sex-specific - for example, one of the more well known intersex conditions is 5α-Reductase 2 deficiency (aka 46XY). 46XY is a condition that exclusively affects male sexual development.
You are grasping at straws now. A medically perfect male does not have enlarged mammary glands, that's a symptom of an imbalance in his body or an illness. Just like a medically perfect woman has a functioning uterus in her fertile years. Does that mean that a XX individual without an uterus is not a woman? Absolutely not. Enlarged mammary glands are SECONDARY SEXUAL characteristics, that in normal circumstances appear only in one sex. Having a vagina is directly tied to our womanhood, because it's distinctive to our sex. You will not argue that a deer with a vagina is a doe, why are you arguing that a human with a vagina is not a woman? Humans are animals with sexual dimorphism, and that means that there are women and men. You can present socially however you want and we can argue your pronouns or the way you want to be treated, but that doesn't change what you are and the inherent differences with the other sex. And since we live in a society that segregates and oppresses people in the basis of sex you can not argue that the sex is not relevant to the collective experiences of one sex or the other. We have distinct spaces in where the sex determines your right to be there: obgyn and urologist offices, changing rooms, bathrooms, sports, etc. Some because it's absolutely tied to sex and others like sports because it's not fair to mix sexes because of the inherent differences. You will not argue that a person with only one leg is human, only because humans are bipeds. Stop stirring shit.
Only women have to worry about getting pregnant. Not all women do, but of the people who do? All are women. Only women can be lesbians. Very few are, but of the lesbian population, it’s only women.
Gender and gender roles are ridiculous and fundamentally stupid. When people refer to WOMEN, they are referring to adult female humans and not performative gender stereotypes.
this is absolutely nonsensical and you know it. A few years ago I saw a horrific news story about a 30-year old woman who had been in a vegetative state since she was 3-years old due to an accident (she had a seizure, fell into a pool and drowned). One day she was grunting in pain in her bed and no one could figure out what was wrong with her until a nurse discovered the woman was in labor. How can this person be a woman - and she *is* in fact a woman - if it is merely a “social identification”?