Well obviously. Nobody is “just their genitals.” That would be weird. Imagine it, just millions and millions of genitals and nothing else. They couldn’t even walk around, because no legs (this goes for the male variety too). No walking, no talking, no ballet, no eating a cheeseburger – nothing. Just genitals. You may be thinking well at least it would be sexy, but would it? Would it? When there’s absolutely nothing else? No brain, no eyes, no ears, no feet? I say no.
Comments
11 responses to “Much more”
This was not the most brilliant man I’ve ever encountered on Twitter.
Well he’s not defined by his brains you know.
Are you sure he wasn’t thinking with his genitals? He was replying to a woman after all.
Men might be able to awkwardly hop around.
To be fair, I think that Hugh is just his genitals.
Of course it’s the TRAs and their woke fellow travelers who are forced to refer to women by their genitals or other references to reproductive biology. They never see that irony.
I seriously doubt that men who seek to control women — because of women’s sex organs — really believe that women have a right to privacy, or that women amount to anything more than their genitals and reproductive capacity.
That would be us — women, and men who support women’s rights — and not you, who see women as more than their genitals
Yes, we are the ones who recognize that women are whole human beings, with thoughts, feelings, needs, desires, beliefs, ambitions, emotions, etc. They have brains, and bodies, and are capable of many things. However, the thing that differentiates women from men is their reproductive system. Women have one kind; men have a wholly different kind. Because reproductive organs and sex characteristics are objective matters of differential biology and anatomy, the whole human beings who are women have some needs and desires that are different from men’s needs and desires. Got it? Whole human beings that are differentiated by the biological realities of sex.
Now, answer the question: do you think that “female people ever have the right to organize/recreate/congregate w/o anyone born male?”
It’s such an absurd argument. I usually encounter it in the aggressive version (“You’re reducing women to their genitals!”) I usually respond with something like this: Hugh, want to hear something REALLY outrageous? Biologists classify human beings as vertebrates.
That’s right–SCIENTISTS are REDUCING US ALL to our SPINAL CORDS!!
(They never respond.)
“Triangles are much more than their geometry.”
Right, they can be blue or green, transparent or dotted, isosceles or equilateral. They can even be non-euclidean. Triangles can appear in flowers or in the stars above. Within the bounds of triangles is enclosed infinite variety. But what makes a triangle a triangle and not any other polygon is its exactly three sides and exactly three corners.
@Lady Mondegreen
Embarrassing them even further by explaning that we are mammals because of breasts!
“They’re reducing us to our tits!”
@Lady Mondegreen,
You’re excluding all the non-vertebrates with spinal cords (e.g., trans-cephalopods who were assigned human at birth) and vertebrates without spinal cords (e.g., Lyndsey Graham).