“Now I think they’re just men having a uniquely and inescapably male experience that involves projecting male ideas about what it would feel like to be a woman on women, and then relating to those projections (and insisting that we must relate to those projections, too).” Spot on. You’ve nailed it.
Why is this clear, rational concept so offensive to others? Clearly otherwise intelligent people believe that this is obscenely bigoted thinking. I cannot wrap my head around it. Objective reality is now cruel.
Six paragraphs! That's all it took to explain the whole convoluted, mind-mangling, destructive regressive shebang. And not a single "(anything)phobic" word to be seen. Brilliant. I feel like I can breath again. Thank you.
"I'd love the 'all women' crowd to specify just what it is 'all women' share that no women share with men or transmen. I admit I'm stumped."
Easy, peasy - you all have functional ovaries; that IS the "necessary and sufficient condition" to qualify as females, and thereby as women - AKA, "adult human females".
Though it is a bit of a puzzle to me why so many people - women in particular - balk at that particular definition and its logical consequences. Doubly suprising in that Helen Joyce - author of " Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality" - underlined that same definition in an article - "She Who Must Not Be Named" - at Quillette several years ago. In particular, she said:
“The problem is that ‘female’ is not something you can identify as. It’s a word with an objective definition that holds right across all of biology, and hardly any of the things it refers to are capable of identifying as anything. It means: ‘of or denoting the sex class that produces large gametes,’ ….”
Transwomen can desperately and dementedly blather on, until the cows come home, about how they "identify as women". But that is as logically incoherent, untenable, and as risible as a child of 12 "identifying as an adult" - and expecting thereby to being able to drive a car or buy booze and cigarettes.
Both claims should be or would be given short shrift indeed - rather odd that that would take place in the latter case, but that so few are willing or able to do so in the former one.
You underestimate the ludicrous pedantry of the post-modern woke cult. They'd jump on that statement in a flash and point out (correctly) that not ALL women have functional ovaries. Ha! Gotcha! My grandmother no longer has functional ovaries. Isn't she a woman then? Good. Now we've proved that not all women have functional ovaries that proves that trans women are women. Such is the logic of these kids.
A human being whose biological reproductive system is organised for the production of large gametes (ovae) is female - small gametes (sperm) male. Not one human body anywhere ever in the whole wide world has ever been organised for the production of both types of gametes. So you can see that a woman's ovaries might not be functioning or they might even have been removed, but she would under this definition nevertheless still be a woman, whilst someone whose reproductive system was organized for the production of small gametes, would always be a man - even if he'd been castrated and had plastic surgery to equip himself with a facsimile vagina.
"You underestimate the ludicrous pedantry of the post-modern woke cult."
Hard to underestimate how ludicrous their pedantry, their motivated reasoning, can get. I'm reminded of "Last Thursdayism" as a similar type of "reasoning":
Although the "reasoning" of many feminists is often almost as bad - whole topic of sex and gender, much of it based on feminist perspectives and "philosophy", is riven with ideological biases of one sort or another:
"Now we've proved that not all women have functional ovaries ..."
That argument, a fairly common one, reminds me of the "monkey trap": "A cage containing a banana with a hole large enough for a monkey's hand to fit in, but not large enough for a monkey's fist (clutching a banana) to come out":
Similarly, far too many people have a rather desperate hold on the idea that their wives, sisters, mothers, grandmothers, daughters or themselves (if XXers) *must* necessarily always be and have been females, and are thereby trapped by a simply untenable argument. It’s one based only on something of a working hypothesis, a premise that hardly qualifies as gospel truth even if it’s often touted as an article of faith. As you had later said or suggested, that claim is contingent upon being "under [that] definition", but the credibility and viability of it is what is under dispute; it's not a foregone conclusion.
More particularly, "female" isn't an identity - it's a label that denotes a quite transitory biological capability (produces ova). At least on the basis of the biological definition which is really the only one that's at all coherent or makes any sense at all.
"Zach Elliot ... elucidates it very well on his Paradox Institute site ..."
Thanks for the link; he often has some cogent observations and perspectives, his discussion on the conflation of "defining" and "determining" being a more or less solid case in point.
However, I think he too has his hand or mind in that same monkey trap. He initially endorses the standard biological definitions - "the male sex is the phenotype that produces small gametes (sperm) and the female sex is the phenotype that produces large gametes (ova)" - but then subsequently snatches defeat from the jaws of victory by blathering on about "structures that support", "body plan organized around ...", and how "in humans, sex is binary and immutable".
But absolutely no definition that I've seen - including the ones he quotes from Lehtonen and Parker - says anything at all about "structures", "body plan", or "immutable". The necessary and sufficient condition to qualify as a member of either sex is having functional gonads, is "produces sperm or ova" (present tense indefinite).
BTW, changing gears, how much does it cost to subscribe to your Substack? Many if not most bloggers on that platform don't say or indicate whether subscribing is free or not, and I'm reluctant to subscribe without knowing ahead of time.
“Now I think they’re just men having a uniquely and inescapably male experience that involves projecting male ideas about what it would feel like to be a woman on women, and then relating to those projections (and insisting that we must relate to those projections, too).” Spot on. You’ve nailed it.
Why is this clear, rational concept so offensive to others? Clearly otherwise intelligent people believe that this is obscenely bigoted thinking. I cannot wrap my head around it. Objective reality is now cruel.
You said it so well, Eliza. No male can ever know what being a woman feels like, as no male can ever be a woman.
Six paragraphs! That's all it took to explain the whole convoluted, mind-mangling, destructive regressive shebang. And not a single "(anything)phobic" word to be seen. Brilliant. I feel like I can breath again. Thank you.
Thank you!
Exactly!
This is excellent ❤ Thank you!
Eliza,
"I'd love the 'all women' crowd to specify just what it is 'all women' share that no women share with men or transmen. I admit I'm stumped."
Easy, peasy - you all have functional ovaries; that IS the "necessary and sufficient condition" to qualify as females, and thereby as women - AKA, "adult human females".
Though it is a bit of a puzzle to me why so many people - women in particular - balk at that particular definition and its logical consequences. Doubly suprising in that Helen Joyce - author of " Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality" - underlined that same definition in an article - "She Who Must Not Be Named" - at Quillette several years ago. In particular, she said:
“The problem is that ‘female’ is not something you can identify as. It’s a word with an objective definition that holds right across all of biology, and hardly any of the things it refers to are capable of identifying as anything. It means: ‘of or denoting the sex class that produces large gametes,’ ….”
https://quillette.com/2020/06/20/she-who-must-not-be-named/
Transwomen can desperately and dementedly blather on, until the cows come home, about how they "identify as women". But that is as logically incoherent, untenable, and as risible as a child of 12 "identifying as an adult" - and expecting thereby to being able to drive a car or buy booze and cigarettes.
Both claims should be or would be given short shrift indeed - rather odd that that would take place in the latter case, but that so few are willing or able to do so in the former one.
You underestimate the ludicrous pedantry of the post-modern woke cult. They'd jump on that statement in a flash and point out (correctly) that not ALL women have functional ovaries. Ha! Gotcha! My grandmother no longer has functional ovaries. Isn't she a woman then? Good. Now we've proved that not all women have functional ovaries that proves that trans women are women. Such is the logic of these kids.
Zach Elliot, who is not a biologist, elucidates it very well on his Paradox Institute site: https://theparadoxinstitute.com/blog/2022/01/15/defining-sex-vs-determining-sex/
A human being whose biological reproductive system is organised for the production of large gametes (ovae) is female - small gametes (sperm) male. Not one human body anywhere ever in the whole wide world has ever been organised for the production of both types of gametes. So you can see that a woman's ovaries might not be functioning or they might even have been removed, but she would under this definition nevertheless still be a woman, whilst someone whose reproductive system was organized for the production of small gametes, would always be a man - even if he'd been castrated and had plastic surgery to equip himself with a facsimile vagina.
CatalepticOnion,
"You underestimate the ludicrous pedantry of the post-modern woke cult."
Hard to underestimate how ludicrous their pedantry, their motivated reasoning, can get. I'm reminded of "Last Thursdayism" as a similar type of "reasoning":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis#Criticisms
Although the "reasoning" of many feminists is often almost as bad - whole topic of sex and gender, much of it based on feminist perspectives and "philosophy", is riven with ideological biases of one sort or another:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346447193_Ideological_Bias_in_the_Psychology_of_Sex_and_Gender
"Now we've proved that not all women have functional ovaries ..."
That argument, a fairly common one, reminds me of the "monkey trap": "A cage containing a banana with a hole large enough for a monkey's hand to fit in, but not large enough for a monkey's fist (clutching a banana) to come out":
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/monkey_trap
Similarly, far too many people have a rather desperate hold on the idea that their wives, sisters, mothers, grandmothers, daughters or themselves (if XXers) *must* necessarily always be and have been females, and are thereby trapped by a simply untenable argument. It’s one based only on something of a working hypothesis, a premise that hardly qualifies as gospel truth even if it’s often touted as an article of faith. As you had later said or suggested, that claim is contingent upon being "under [that] definition", but the credibility and viability of it is what is under dispute; it's not a foregone conclusion.
More particularly, "female" isn't an identity - it's a label that denotes a quite transitory biological capability (produces ova). At least on the basis of the biological definition which is really the only one that's at all coherent or makes any sense at all.
"Zach Elliot ... elucidates it very well on his Paradox Institute site ..."
Thanks for the link; he often has some cogent observations and perspectives, his discussion on the conflation of "defining" and "determining" being a more or less solid case in point.
However, I think he too has his hand or mind in that same monkey trap. He initially endorses the standard biological definitions - "the male sex is the phenotype that produces small gametes (sperm) and the female sex is the phenotype that produces large gametes (ova)" - but then subsequently snatches defeat from the jaws of victory by blathering on about "structures that support", "body plan organized around ...", and how "in humans, sex is binary and immutable".
But absolutely no definition that I've seen - including the ones he quotes from Lehtonen and Parker - says anything at all about "structures", "body plan", or "immutable". The necessary and sufficient condition to qualify as a member of either sex is having functional gonads, is "produces sperm or ova" (present tense indefinite).
BTW, changing gears, how much does it cost to subscribe to your Substack? Many if not most bloggers on that platform don't say or indicate whether subscribing is free or not, and I'm reluctant to subscribe without knowing ahead of time.