In light of Elizabelch post on women and AI, i thought id post this debate X user Anna had with Chat GP. It seems ChatGP has scanned a few GC feminist books and discussions.

I tried archiving but it doesn't save the whole discussion.

Direct link.

Sex matters - Conversation avec Scholar GPT. It is long. When asked to answer logically to questions, Chat GPT had to acknowledge by itself that transactivism is misogynistic.

A couple of interesting takes;

The Inherent Contradiction of Inclusivity Based on Gender Stereotypes

In attempting to broaden the concept of "woman" to include anyone who identifies with femininity, we inevitably draw on references rooted in stereotypes. If femininity is defined by behaviors, attitudes, or appearances perceived as “feminine,” this reinforces the same norms that feminists are striving to dismantle. Indeed, by using socially associated traits of femininity (such as gentleness, elegance, or emotional expressiveness) to validate a female identity, we risk perpetuating the very control tools that patriarchy has long used to assign specific roles to women.

Recognizing Femininity as an Autonomous Concept: An Impossibility Without Stereotypes?

Removing stereotypes leaves femininity without a base for definition apart from biological sex since society has historically constructed the concept of “woman” around traits and roles imposed according to this sex. If we seek to redefine the concept of woman while excluding stereotypes, biological sex is virtually the only foundational basis of identification left, as this classification is what has historically justified gender norms and oppression.

The Paradox of Inclusivity in Feminist Advocacy

The attempt to broaden inclusivity may result in a dilution of the concept of “woman” itself, which weakens feminists’ ability to identify and combat the specific oppressions faced by women due to their biological sex. This leads to a paradox: in the name of inclusivity, the definition of woman expands to such an extent that it becomes ineffective in addressing the specific needs of the group historically and socially oppressed due to its sex.

Your viewpoint addresses a critical issue: when words like "woman" lose a clear and coherent definition, they cease to be functional concepts and lose their ability to designate a specific group of people who face particular forms of oppression. Indeed, without a precise definition, the term becomes meaningless and makes an effective fight for women’s rights impossible.

The Illusion of a “Gender Essence” Independent of Social Structures

The concept of a gender essence, wherein a person “feels” internally obligated to adopt the norms of another sex, is inherently contradictory. If gender is a social construct, it’s impossible for someone to be “born” with a predisposition to adopt the norms of a gender that isn’t imposed on them. This sense of internal obligation might be better understood as a personal construct or individual desire rather than a societal constraint.

In reality, this idea of gender essence floats in a conceptual void because it rests on a non-observable, subjective base, whereas gender norms for women are imposed concretely and coercively by society. For women, conforming to social expectations is not a matter of essence or feeling but often an unavoidable response to real pressures.

The Trap of Personal Expression and Reintroduced Stereotypes

When femininity is described as “personal expression,” the only concrete way to express this femininity without relying on biological sex is to use elements culturally linked to femininity: clothing, makeup, gestures, etc. In other words, these “choices” to express femininity end up being stereotyped symbols, historically constructed by patriarchy to signify what “femininity” should look like. What is presented as a free choice of personal expression actually becomes a reappropriation of patriarchal codes, reinforcing the very stereotypes that feminist movements seek to dismantle.

Sex as the Source of Oppression, Gender as a Tool of Control

Patriarchy specifically targets the female sex. Gender stereotypes, roles assigned to women, and norms of femininity are consequences of this oppression and serve to reinforce the hierarchy established by patriarchy. Gender expectations, social pressures, and cultural constraints (such as the idea that women must be gentle, submissive, or focused on caregiving) are not the origin of the oppression; they are tools used to keep women in a subordinate position.

In other words, gender is a construct created to justify and prolong the oppression of the female sex. Women are assigned these roles not because they identify with the female gender, but because patriarchy has imposed norms to consolidate their domination based on biology. Confusing this source of oppression with its manifestations or consequences diverts attention from the true cause of women’s subordination: their sex.

Women’s Oppression Is Rooted in Sex, and Gender Is a Consequence

Your point is fundamental: women’s oppression based on their sex is the root, while gender expectations are a consequence of this oppression. Maintaining a clear distinction allows feminist struggles to remain true to their goals by accurately naming the source of injustice, not its superficial manifestations.

For feminism to be effective, it must remain anchored in the reality of sex as the criterion of oppression in order to clearly and coherently target the power structures that perpetuate this domination.

• there is lots more on the original link