It reminds me of other dehumanizing language used for women like "just a hole". I also think that when violence against women in particular is so sexualized, we need to think hard about language and images that encourages separation of women's bodies from their humanity.
I thought I’d once read on your pages something about the former name and background of Caitlin Johnstone?
A friend is a follower, I am not, and I wanted to round out his knowledge of her/him. Do you have, or can you direct me to anything like that? I remember also reading that “Caitlin” is using a new name. I have spent an unbelievable amount of time searching. I think the Internet has been laundered.
Thanks. I tried to email you, to no avail. The bot-response I got said to try the website, so here I am. I am an appreciative reader of your work.
Dang! Missed the celebration! But nice to know it will be a yearly occurrence ... 😉
But kind of think you and far too many others are barking up the wrong tree with your, "invariably reduce women to 'birthing bodies,' uterus-havers, reproductive functions and services, and even just body parts".
Not quite sure what you think "female" actually MEANS and what are the logical consequences in joining it at the hip with the definition for "woman", i.e., "adult human female". The standard biological definition for "female" is "produces ova":
"female: Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes."
Which entails any number of logical, social, physiological, and psychological consequences. I see that Helen Joyce has weighed-in on the issue by insisting, "I want my nice, ordinary, polite words - Woman and Female - back, please.":
What she really wants is to do is to "sanitize" those words, to disconnect them from their underlying meanings, to evade the consequences of planting her flag on those categories, to turn them into vague and substance-free euphemisms, into "immutable identities" based on some "mythic essences". And with that, she's more a part of the problem than of the solution.
You may wish to take look at Kathleen Stock's Substack where she has some justified criticisms of such "speech-sanitizers":
"Specifically, we should attend to connections and parallels between what I’ll call the speech-sanitizer mindset and the kind of obsessive-compulsive disorder sometimes called 'harm OCD' - a disorder that leaves you convinced that you’re likely to do other people harm, or have somehow already done so, whether you meant to or not."
But all of what Joyce is trying to do there is virtually the same as what someone on the other side of the fence - Billy Bragg, Himself - has done by "thinking" - apparently - that calling someone a male or a female is trying to "define someone by their biology alone", to "dehumanize them", to "invalidate their existence" 🙄:
"male" and "female" - and their derivatives, "man" and "woman" - are just labels that denote the presence of particular and quite transitory properties - i.e., functional gonads of either of two types according to standard biological definitions. They are NOT the sum total of a person; they're not essential properties, only "accidental" ones:
By trying to "sanitize" those words, by trying to disconnect them from their meanings, from what they actually DENOTE, Joyce and company only play into the hands of nutcases like Ellie Mae O'Hagan who objects to calling transwomen "male-bodied people", and MP Stella Creasy who apparently wants to "re-engineer the concept 'female' ...":
Though I think the author, and the Tweeter that Creasy was referring to - Jon Pike, may be engaged in a bit of re-engineering himself by promoting non-functional and "social-sciences" definitions for the sexes that are profoundly antithetical and quite inimical to the biological ones.
The devils are in the details; resolving the issue is simply not in the cards without grappling with them, without calling a spade a shovel and letting the chips fall where they may.
It reminds me of other dehumanizing language used for women like "just a hole". I also think that when violence against women in particular is so sexualized, we need to think hard about language and images that encourages separation of women's bodies from their humanity.
"It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words." 1984, George Orwell
I suppose every other day is Penis Day?
I thought I’d once read on your pages something about the former name and background of Caitlin Johnstone?
A friend is a follower, I am not, and I wanted to round out his knowledge of her/him. Do you have, or can you direct me to anything like that? I remember also reading that “Caitlin” is using a new name. I have spent an unbelievable amount of time searching. I think the Internet has been laundered.
Thanks. I tried to email you, to no avail. The bot-response I got said to try the website, so here I am. I am an appreciative reader of your work.
I don't recognize that name?
Sorry, it must have been elsewhere. Try Glinner...
And thank you for your kind words about my work!
That video was painful to watch. Honestly, what do they think they're accomplishing?
"If you think (female!) politicians being unwilling to name the sex class that bears the burdens of human reproduction, you're a moron."
You're missing part of the sentence here. "If you think (someone) ________, you're a moron."
I agree with you. I just like to see complete thoughts.
Whoops, thanks!
Dang! Missed the celebration! But nice to know it will be a yearly occurrence ... 😉
But kind of think you and far too many others are barking up the wrong tree with your, "invariably reduce women to 'birthing bodies,' uterus-havers, reproductive functions and services, and even just body parts".
Not quite sure what you think "female" actually MEANS and what are the logical consequences in joining it at the hip with the definition for "woman", i.e., "adult human female". The standard biological definition for "female" is "produces ova":
"female: Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes."
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/female
Which entails any number of logical, social, physiological, and psychological consequences. I see that Helen Joyce has weighed-in on the issue by insisting, "I want my nice, ordinary, polite words - Woman and Female - back, please.":
https://twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1531898046249721856
What she really wants is to do is to "sanitize" those words, to disconnect them from their underlying meanings, to evade the consequences of planting her flag on those categories, to turn them into vague and substance-free euphemisms, into "immutable identities" based on some "mythic essences". And with that, she's more a part of the problem than of the solution.
You may wish to take look at Kathleen Stock's Substack where she has some justified criticisms of such "speech-sanitizers":
"Specifically, we should attend to connections and parallels between what I’ll call the speech-sanitizer mindset and the kind of obsessive-compulsive disorder sometimes called 'harm OCD' - a disorder that leaves you convinced that you’re likely to do other people harm, or have somehow already done so, whether you meant to or not."
https://kathleenstock.substack.com/p/too-much-caring-not-enough-sharing?s=r
But all of what Joyce is trying to do there is virtually the same as what someone on the other side of the fence - Billy Bragg, Himself - has done by "thinking" - apparently - that calling someone a male or a female is trying to "define someone by their biology alone", to "dehumanize them", to "invalidate their existence" 🙄:
https://twitter.com/SamBarber1910/status/1530681764791865344
"male" and "female" - and their derivatives, "man" and "woman" - are just labels that denote the presence of particular and quite transitory properties - i.e., functional gonads of either of two types according to standard biological definitions. They are NOT the sum total of a person; they're not essential properties, only "accidental" ones:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/
By trying to "sanitize" those words, by trying to disconnect them from their meanings, from what they actually DENOTE, Joyce and company only play into the hands of nutcases like Ellie Mae O'Hagan who objects to calling transwomen "male-bodied people", and MP Stella Creasy who apparently wants to "re-engineer the concept 'female' ...":
https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1460942680440061954
https://twitter.com/stellacreasy/status/1530324404605014016
Fairly decent elaboration on that "re-engineering the concept 'female' ..." in an article at The Critic:
https://thecritic.co.uk/language-truth-and-logic/
Though I think the author, and the Tweeter that Creasy was referring to - Jon Pike, may be engaged in a bit of re-engineering himself by promoting non-functional and "social-sciences" definitions for the sexes that are profoundly antithetical and quite inimical to the biological ones.
The devils are in the details; resolving the issue is simply not in the cards without grappling with them, without calling a spade a shovel and letting the chips fall where they may.