18

This may seem absurdly simple but I think it bears stating anyway.

When ideologues insist a woman is someone who says they are a woman, yes they are putting forth a hopelessly circular concept. And they deserve to be mocked mercilessly on that basis alone.

But they are also making an admission that someone’s adherence to a gender stereotype dictates whether they are a woman or man. And this needs to be called out too.

Typically in the “what is a woman?” dialectic, the GC side will rightly point out there is no answer gender ideologists can give that is not circular or stereotype-based. I recently had the epiphany that the circular definition is stereotype-based. It’s just less obvious than traditional stereotypes.

When we say men are women if they assert that they are women, this is another way of saying males who “do what women do” are women. In other words, their behaviors conform to what is generally ascribed to women, and therefore we should label them as such. Not much daylight between this and labeling men as women if they cry at the end of sentimental movies or enjoy knitting. As long as a person’s actions are sufficient to place them in a gender category—in this case, the action of self-identification—then the definition of that gender category is grounded in stereotype.

Progressives who parrot TWAW may very well tolerate looking illogical, just as long as they feel like they are scoring “be kind” social justice woke points. But it’s harder to maintain a self-image of righteousness when you’re forced to see that you’re illogical and regressive. They want to say it’s wrong to reduce women to reproductive biology, but they are reducing women to the stereotype of identifying as women. There is no valid defense for this.

This may seem absurdly simple but I think it bears stating anyway. When ideologues insist a woman is someone who says they are a woman, yes they are putting forth a hopelessly circular concept. And they deserve to be mocked mercilessly on that basis alone. But they are also making an admission that someone’s adherence to a gender stereotype dictates whether they are a woman or man. And this needs to be called out too. Typically in the “what is a woman?” dialectic, the GC side will rightly point out there is no answer gender ideologists can give that is not circular *or* stereotype-based. I recently had the epiphany that the circular definition *is* stereotype-based. It’s just less obvious than traditional stereotypes. When we say men are women if they assert that they are women, this is another way of saying males who “do what women do” are women. In other words, their behaviors conform to what is generally ascribed to women, and therefore we should label them as such. Not much daylight between this and labeling men as women if they cry at the end of sentimental movies or enjoy knitting. As long as a person’s actions are sufficient to place them in a gender category—in this case, the action of self-identification—then the definition of that gender category is grounded in stereotype. Progressives who parrot TWAW may very well tolerate looking illogical, just as long as they feel like they are scoring “be kind” social justice woke points. But it’s harder to maintain a self-image of righteousness when you’re forced to see that you’re illogical and regressive. They want to say it’s wrong to reduce women to reproductive biology, but they are reducing women to the stereotype of identifying as women. There is no valid defense for this.

11 comments

Yeah exactly, their circular moronic "definitions" only work because we all fundamentally know what women and men are. If we instead said humans can have the following gender: bleurk and bleep, and non binary genders, people wouldn't know which one to pick because... Guess what! A "definition" that defines a bleurk as someone who identifies as bleurk is FUCKING USELESS!!

But they also unwillingly admit that they know full well what an actual woman is by their concept of "gender affirming care". So if a woman is anyone who feels as a woman, why do men who "feel like women" want to have moobs and a surgically created fuck hole? Why don't they take testosterone to become extra hairy and muscly, after all a "woman" who looks exactly like 6'11 bearded man, is still a woman if she says the magic words "i identify".

They know. We know. They know we know. But they still must hold on to their fantasies and delusions for one simple reason.

It gets them off sexually. That's it. That's all there is. This is why women and girls are suffering everywhere.

So that fetishistic males get tickly peen feels.

[–] BlackCirce 🔮🐖🐖🐖 1 points Edited

When we say men are women if they assert that they are women, this is another way of saying males who “do what women do” are women. In other words, their behaviors conform to what is generally ascribed to women, and therefore we should label them as such. Not much daylight between this and labeling men as women if they cry at the end of sentimental movies or enjoy knitting.

chefs kiss

They slip into this when they use adoptive parenting as metaphor. Parent has at least two senses, one is the biological usage, one of the two individual organisms that contributed the DNA of an organism. But there is another sense of parent which is close to the verb "mothering" to nurture and care for a child as if one was that child's parent in the biological sense.

Woman does not have these two senses, but genderists want to create it. And not only do they want to create a sense of woman that means "one who womans" they ALSO want to destroy the first, biological meaning of woman "adult human female." This is the diametric opposite of feminism even the tabula rasa type of radical feminism. It's going back and undoing all of women's history and undoing all of women's work of liberating ourselves, by labeling us "non women" because we refuse to "woman."

I too had a cult member try to tell me “woman” is socially expansive like the concept of mother is! I made the same counterargument you just did.

From a linguistic and logic standpoint, you can show how “mother” can easily refer to the following two people without any circularity, regressiveness, or paradoxes: - female parent of a child that is their biological offspring. - female parent of a child they cared for.

It works because the operative factor is female parent; this is a specific role that you either play or don’t play. As you point out, “woman” is not a role! And to even breathe in the direction of implying that “woman” is a role is highly regressive. It affirms the troglodyte idea the women must conform to certain roles to be women.

How can anyone with two brain cells not see this!

This is exactly why I know that us TERFs are MORE progressive. We're saying, hey, if you have a vagina that means you're a woman, and that makes space for there to be INFINITE KINDS OF WOMEN. THEY'RE saying, no, you're a woman if you wear high heels and skirt go spinny. It's so regressive.

The good news is, I may have peaked someone just this weekend with this very point. I still haven't been able to mentally articulate it to the point of it being a coherent elevator pitch, but if someone can help me out here...

Ive seen these conversations play out between TRAs and suspicious/peaking normies, and the TRA when confronted with this will usually go the metaphysical/magical route. It's a magical "feeling" that cannot particularly be summed up or characterized in any specific way. And that's kind of when the normie just shrugs and doesn't have much to retort on that because how do you argue plain facts with magical thinking?

Yes, if gender were fluid and it didn't matter, there would be no reason to switch from one to the other or deny either. Same goes for sex, but wait...damn there's the circle!

It is blindingly clear that gender ideology is completely and utterly ass backwards and sexist and they know it. They're simply content with misogyny but don't want to admit it.

Not the "progressives," though. I think they really do think that TIPs are THE MOST OPPRESSED PEOPLE ON EARTH. I used to think so, myself...

I agree. While I know women are more than capable of being misogynistic, most who are blind supporters are doing so out of the habit of being kind to people whom they perceive as harmless. They don’t want to be lumped with the bigots, so they hop on the bandwagon of affirmation.

Oh, I believe they genuinely think that. I just thought that once you point out to them that it's totally dependent on gender roles and stereotypes, they'd get where we're coming from. But no, the most common responses I've gotten were from both women and men that consider themselves progressive, is that they GENUINELY BELIEVE that liking pink and make up is an innate trait in women and that liking sports and computers is an innate trait in men. Some will try to act like that's not the case, but it is. That's why they can't stand to listen to anyone talk about socialization.