Guest post: The “certain way” of thinking

Originally a comment by Bjarte Foshaug on Women’s sports are prospering so it’s time to give them to men.

So, once again, we have one definition whereby people with physical traits more representative of mothers than fathers are “women” while people with physical traits more representative of fathers than mothers are not, regardless of anything that goes on inside their heads. And we have one definition (or would have if it not for the fact that the Genderspeak definitions of “women” are all circular) whereby people with physical traits more representative of fathers than mothers who think or feel a certain way are “women”, regardless of physical traits, while some…? most…? all…? of the people with physical traits more representative of mothers than fathers are not (As I have previously written, I seriously doubt that many of the latter would say they fit the Genderspeak definition of “women” if they knew how that requires them to think or feel). What we decidedly don’t have is a definition whereby people with physical traits more representative of fathers than mothers who think or feel a certain way are people with physical traits more representative of mothers than fathers, or vice versa.

As I have previously written, it’s unclear to say the least why people who think or feel a certain way would need separate sporting events from people who think or feel some other way (After all, an argument could be made that there are as many ways of thinking and feeling as there are people on the planet), and even if some reason could be conjured up, it is no longer automatically the case that people with physical traits more representative of mothers than fathers are qualified to compete, and we would need some kind of screening process to ensure that only people who really do think/feel the required way get to participate. This is, of course, once again complicated by the fact that the “certain way” that people are supposed to think or feel in order to qualify as “women” is never specified. However, since the Genderspeak definition of “women” pretty much boils down to “whatever it is that angry trans activists happen to be”, I think we can safely conclude that the “certain way” of thinking and feeling includes extreme entitlement, narcissism, aggression, boorishness and misogyny.

6 Responses to “Guest post: The “certain way” of thinking”

Leave a Comment

Subscribe without commenting