15 comments

Spencer_ShayyFebruary 17, 2024

Exactly. Their "reducing women to their genitals" argument has always disgusted me. Female genitals are not something to be "reduced to". They are the literal fucking reason you and every other pink-and-blue demon even exist.

"Trans" people and conservatives are the ones reducing women to anything. You both reduce us to regressive, backwards ass stereotypes, so STFU.

DurableBookFebruary 17, 2024

They mistake that we are reducing the label to only what is both necessary and sufficient to fulfill it.

Limiting the label is how you liberate the individual people.

We used to call this "breaking down stereotypes" but now I guess it's called transphobia or possibly genocide.

DonnaFeminaFebruary 18, 2024(Edited February 18, 2024)

Brilliant.

And yet another zinger from the Women's Liberation Front's Encyclopedia of Bad Gender Arguments:

“Sex-based definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ reduce people to their genitals or reproductive organs.”

For some reason, this is one of the most common tropes transgender advocates rely on to defend their idea of gender as a personal identity. But the problem with this line is obvious: Asserting that a group of people share a particular feature doesn’t reduce them to that feature.

In essentially any other situation, this would be self-evident. After all, no one thinks it ‘reduces Black people to their melanin’ when we acknowledge that they have dark skin, or that it ‘reduces blind people to their eyes’ when we acknowledge they can’t see. Similarly, general statements like Women have uteruses or Men have penises don’t “reduce” anyone to anything. All they do is acknowledge that uteruses are a shared characteristic of women and penises are a shared characteristic of men.

Those who have a knee-jerk reaction to these sorts of acknowledgments may want to examine why it is that they see the mention of female body parts as uniquely “reductive,” and whether this might be a result of patriarchal socialization that sees association with women’s bodies as inherently dehumanizing."

https://womensliberationfront.org/encyclopedia-of-bad-gender-arguments/youre-reducing-people-to-their-biology-jpd2h-yt4ze-zmate-74b4h-exaf2

realityismykinkFebruary 17, 2024

And yet TIMs define womanhood by their boners.

LasagnaRossaFebruary 17, 2024

I came to the same conclusion some months ago. If you think that describing women as adult human females is offensive and reductive, then you have a problem with femaleness. It is not a bad word, and yes, genitalia and humanity can coexist. If you think they can't, you are the misogynist here, who still equate personhood to maleness.

Every-Man-His-Own-FootballFebruary 17, 2024(Edited February 17, 2024)

Yeah, when I argue over these definitions I always point out that reproductive function does not include stereotypes. I haven't encountered a TRAs yet who knew how to respond to that. But maybe one of these days Contrapoints will release a youtube video covering this argument. 😄

DurableBookFebruary 17, 2024

They are so caught up in the marketing framework of having an "identity" that captures every aspect of your personality and interests (the better to sell to you).

Sorry lads but "woman" refers to an entire class of persons who share the traits of being adult and female. It doesn't tell you anything about Who They Are. It does not encompass all their interests, skills, desires, and needs.

Assuming that an entire class of persons will share enough in common that their one class label can completely define every individual member of the class is...yeah that's called "stereotypes on steroids."

NerdyFashionGirlFebruary 17, 2024

I wonder when the idea of a single word describing every part of you became popular. I for one haven't ever thought of myself that way tbh, I've never really thought about it but, I'm a woman, bit I'm also a seamstress, and a musician, a musical lover, a coin collector, hell a Libra. None of these labels sum up the whole of my being, but each describes a part of me, some overlapping parts perhaps, I'm not convinced that you should be able to sum up your entire being in a single word or label, its shallow, shows you don't have range to your person. However it does make sense that they become so defensive about it; if that is all they have, what happens when/if they lose that label?

drdeeisbackFebruary 17, 2024

I've mentioned before that the whole semantic concept of 'female people' seems to blow far too many (male and female) people's minds. Decades ago I had a conversation about this with a friend working on a really interesting project (no idea if she ever followed through) of reading popular self-help books and writing about the academic psychological theory behind them; some time later she came back to me with the realisation that these books literally do seem to consider 'people and women' as if they're separate categories.

TSTat1400February 17, 2024

Female people is why I decided to join Ovarit. I want to participate in a community that really does see women as people.

drdeeisbackFebruary 17, 2024(Edited February 17, 2024)

Speaking of 'people' (more specifically 'persons') and 'women', here's a talk from a lawyer:

https://ovarit.com/o/FeministVideos/536294/why-do-men-take-credit-for-women-s-work-wendy-murphy-tedxwalden-pond-youtube

TSTat1400February 17, 2024

Recommend everyone watch this video - it's very good, about 17 min long and delves into foundational legal issues.

sicktodeathFebruary 17, 2024

It’s so ridiculous that they go straight to genitalia instead of discussing how we’re female down to our DNA.

overanddoneFebruary 17, 2024

"Argue with the wall"

Best.line.ever. So tired of the same old manufactured outrage. Go argue with the wall.

tamingthemindeh/ayyyyFebruary 17, 2024

👏👏👏