What “Fee” is saying is Orwellian Newspeak. Yes, obstretric violence is sex based, but this person wants to make clear that there is literally no name for that sex in the English language, so it cannot be discussed.
…not everyone who is capable of giving birth, identifies with the female or woman label?
Sorry, but even if we grant the nebulous and highly contested concept of gender identity, it does not follow that one’s sex is also a matter of ‘identifying as’. Saying that some people that are female don’t identify as female is like saying a 6ft tall person doesn’t identify as being 6 feet tall. ‘Female’ is a label for a body matching certain physical parameters; if a person matches those parameters, she is female.
Years ago, TRAs were pushing for a more moderate position: a transwoman was male, but a woman. Male/female were sex-based terms; man/woman were categories of identity.
There’s plenty to object to here — but that’s no longer the claim. It’s now male/man and female/women are both matters of how you identify. Or, perhaps, that “male” and “female” are nonsensical distinctions (wadabout IntERseX???) and even bringing them up is transphobic and intended to harm the vulnerable. So “some males have a a functioning uterus and can give birth” is supposed to be scientific and obviously true.
I’d say it’s less Newspeak and more doublethink. Newspeak would destroy the word, while Fee’s ilk would destroy its meaning. To simultaneously think “this is sex-based” and “this is identity-based” is paradigmatic doublethink.
To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself—that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word—doublethink—involved the use of doublethink.
Sastra, not only is sex transphobic, it’s a product of western colonialism. No one knew anything like that until westerners colonized them and divided the world into two sexes. Haven’t you heard? It’s racism, pure and simple, to suggest men can’t be women.
Iknklast #6: Yes, by now we know this well, as the TRAs have been teaching us for some time now. (Two years already?) Until Columbus colonized the Indigenous Peoples (all of them), they all used to just try rubbing against each other in various combinations, and sometimes a baby would come out and sometimes not. They had no concept of categorizing people into two sexes.
Yay!
❤️
What “Fee” is saying is Orwellian Newspeak. Yes, obstretric violence is sex based, but this person wants to make clear that there is literally no name for that sex in the English language, so it cannot be discussed.
Sorry, but even if we grant the nebulous and highly contested concept of gender identity, it does not follow that one’s sex is also a matter of ‘identifying as’. Saying that some people that are female don’t identify as female is like saying a 6ft tall person doesn’t identify as being 6 feet tall. ‘Female’ is a label for a body matching certain physical parameters; if a person matches those parameters, she is female.
Years ago, TRAs were pushing for a more moderate position: a transwoman was male, but a woman. Male/female were sex-based terms; man/woman were categories of identity.
There’s plenty to object to here — but that’s no longer the claim. It’s now male/man and female/women are both matters of how you identify. Or, perhaps, that “male” and “female” are nonsensical distinctions (wadabout IntERseX???) and even bringing them up is transphobic and intended to harm the vulnerable. So “some males have a a functioning uterus and can give birth” is supposed to be scientific and obviously true.
GW
I’d say it’s less Newspeak and more doublethink. Newspeak would destroy the word, while Fee’s ilk would destroy its meaning. To simultaneously think “this is sex-based” and “this is identity-based” is paradigmatic doublethink.
Sastra, not only is sex transphobic, it’s a product of western colonialism. No one knew anything like that until westerners colonized them and divided the world into two sexes. Haven’t you heard? It’s racism, pure and simple, to suggest men can’t be women.
They get more ridiculous with every passing day.
Iknklast, this must be the first generation to think their parents invented sex.
Iknklast #6: Yes, by now we know this well, as the TRAs have been teaching us for some time now. (Two years already?) Until Columbus colonized the Indigenous Peoples (all of them), they all used to just try rubbing against each other in various combinations, and sometimes a baby would come out and sometimes not. They had no concept of categorizing people into two sexes.
It’s really sinister to say to someone “you obviously haven’t learned from the response JKR got” when that response was rape and death threats.