Et tu?

Comments

5 responses to “Et tu?”

1. 

   Omar

   Apr 21, 2026 7:54 AM

   “The regulation agency defines a female as someone whose ‘biological sex is that of a female’ and whose gender identity or gender expression is that of a female.”

   Why would an anatomical female who is also a feminist quarrel with that?

   If it was, say: “The regulation agency defines a female as someone whose biological sex can be either male or female as long as their gender identity or gender expression is that of a female” it would be a different story.

   Or have I missed something?
2. 

   Deep Thinking

   Apr 21, 2026 8:25 AM

   @Omar

   Like Ophelia said: gender identity or gender expression are irrelevant to being a female; not all anatomical females – particularly not femininsts? – would agree that they have a gender identity or gender expression of a female (or at all).
3. 

   Ophelia Benson

   Apr 21, 2026 8:39 AM

   Just so. Everything after ““The regulation agency defines a female as someone whose ‘biological sex is that of a female’” is otiose. Genner idenniny and genner expression don’t change people’s sex.
4. 

   Patrick

   Apr 21, 2026 1:25 PM

   Im posting this without identifiers because it’s a whole thing.

   I remember a while back when the “gender bread man” was a popular meme. I was lurking on some blogs while almost never commenting, as I am wont to do. Like here!

   The blogger in question was some form of non binary that as is often the case looked a lot like just being a woman with anxiety and suicidality. Their pronouns at the the time were Xie so I’ll stick with that for now because I haven’t gone back to check if it’s changed, and pronouns are also a whole thing.

   Xie was ‘splaining that an assigned at birth male (it’s hard to even use words to say this, and I think that’s deliberate) believing that they are “really” a woman was definitely not like a man believing that they are Napoleon, and the gender bread man was wielded as a tool in that discussion.

   I remember thinking: If the gender bread man terminology takes off, then the small but growing trend of referring to women as “females” will also take off. This is because straight men still need words to talk about their own feelings and sexual orientation, and sexual orientation is about bodies. No man has ever opened a dirty magazine and been unsure about whether he feels attraction to the centerfold girl because he doesn’t know her internal sense of gender.

   And then I thought, that will be a test. If Xie is correct and this is not the Napoleon thing, everyone will be satisfied with that. Trans women will be women, the class of people who can give birth and to whom heterosexual males are sexually attracted will be females. The gender bread man will be social reality. And we can all put this to bed.

   But I didn’t think Xie was right. I thought that the moment everyone decided that “trans women are women” was how to speak, there would be a push for “trans women are female.” Because if it’s the Napoleon thing, no one who thinks they are Napoleon will be happy about being called Napoleon if everyone starts calling the actual French historical figure Napoleon Prime. They don’t just want the word, they want what the word represents.

   I think history has vindicated my suspicion.
5. 

   Bjarte Foshaug

   Apr 21, 2026 2:15 PM

   The regulation agency defines a female as someone whose “biological sex is that of a female” and whose gender identity or gender expression is that of a female.

   As we all know, the conjunction “A and B” is true if and only if the conjuncts A and B, taken seperately, are both true. If only one of the conjuncts is true, the conjunction as a whole is false. So by to this definition, anyone “whose gender identity or gender expression is that of a female” does not qualify as female unless it is also true that her “biological sex is that of a female”*. I smell thoughtcrime…

   And, Of course, the obligatory circular definitions. it was bad enough when the word “female” only appeared once in the definition of “female”, but twice…

   * Unfortunately, by the same logic, the definition also disqualifies anyone whose “biological sex is that of a female” unless it is also true that their “gender identity or gender expression is that of a female”