Sure can sympathize with that argument. However, the rot goes rather deep and which -- one might argue even if only as a Devil's Advocate ... 😉🙂 -- more or less makes us all culpable, to one degree or another, for our contributions to that state of affairs.
Sure can sympathize with that argument. However, the rot goes rather deep and which -- one might argue even if only as a Devil's Advocate ... 😉🙂 -- more or less makes us all culpable, to one degree or another, for our contributions to that state of affairs.
Not to belabour the point ..., but a big part of the problem is that "we" seem to find it impossible to agree on what we mean by the various terms we throw about with "gay abandon", so to speak. For examples, "sex", "gender", and, of course, the biggie, "woman". Apropos of the first two, I wonder -- as per previous discussions -- whether you think they're synonymous, and whether you'd accept "gender" as roughly equivalent to sexually dimorphic personalities and personality types:
Apropos of the third, I more or less fell off my chair when I heard Kathleen Stock's rather "brutally" but commendably honest take thereon in a YouTube interview with Peter Boghossian:
KS @51:10 : ".. there is you know, there's no kind of inevitability about the word 'woman' meaning 'adult human females' ...."
Peter Boghossian & Kathleen Stock: Lesbians Don’t Have Penises
She's definitely one of the saner feminists on the scene, although she too (still) has some very questionable and unexamined assumptions she's hobbled by.
But there are many other definitions for "woman" that "work" -- more or less -- and that may well be more useful, at least in some circumstances. Unfortunately that one has become something of an article of faith for too many which is, arguably, as much a part of the problem of transgenderism as of the solution.
Nuke them from orbit -- just to be sure ... 😉🙂
Sure can sympathize with that argument. However, the rot goes rather deep and which -- one might argue even if only as a Devil's Advocate ... 😉🙂 -- more or less makes us all culpable, to one degree or another, for our contributions to that state of affairs.
Not to belabour the point ..., but a big part of the problem is that "we" seem to find it impossible to agree on what we mean by the various terms we throw about with "gay abandon", so to speak. For examples, "sex", "gender", and, of course, the biggie, "woman". Apropos of the first two, I wonder -- as per previous discussions -- whether you think they're synonymous, and whether you'd accept "gender" as roughly equivalent to sexually dimorphic personalities and personality types:
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/feminism-or-conservatism-which-is/comment/21894653
Apropos of the third, I more or less fell off my chair when I heard Kathleen Stock's rather "brutally" but commendably honest take thereon in a YouTube interview with Peter Boghossian:
KS @51:10 : ".. there is you know, there's no kind of inevitability about the word 'woman' meaning 'adult human females' ...."
Peter Boghossian & Kathleen Stock: Lesbians Don’t Have Penises
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhWyo9iYQNE
She's definitely one of the saner feminists on the scene, although she too (still) has some very questionable and unexamined assumptions she's hobbled by.
But there are many other definitions for "woman" that "work" -- more or less -- and that may well be more useful, at least in some circumstances. Unfortunately that one has become something of an article of faith for too many which is, arguably, as much a part of the problem of transgenderism as of the solution.