Umm, really?

Strike Against Gender Bay Area

A Facebitch page.

I can understand a strike against gender discrimination, even one in favour of it. But how does one strike over a biological reality? Is this like striking because to get to the Moon we’ve got to use those phallic symbols of Elon Musk and the like instead of just flapping our arms and wishing?

10 thoughts on “Umm, really?”

  1. It’s probably TERFs. They claim that sex is the biological reality and that gender is the social structures established to oppress women.

    They use this as a way to attack transgender women – by calling them men and accusing them of trying to infiltate women’s only spaces in order to commit gender violence.

    To quote from one:

    “My gender is a coercively imposed social fact positioning me as the subclass in an exploitative hierarchy”

  2. Sorry, have they changed all the dictionaries? Sex is biological, gender is social. I’d have thought most of the commenters here would be in favour of getting rid of the latter idea.

  3. What need for exertion to get rid of an idea that is plain wrong?

    It is the Marxian scum promulgating such ideas that need to be dealt with.

    Cut the money and listen to ’em squeal.

  4. “Sorry, have they changed all the dictionaries? Sex is biological, gender is social.”

    Yes, they changed the dictionaries. Nowadays both sex and gender are biological, but (to simplify) sex is the biology between the legs, while gender is the biology of the brain.

  5. If sex and/or gender are social constructs, and if race is a social construct too, then there is no such thing as human nature.

    If there’s no such thing as human nature and the human mind is a tabula rasa, then the individual human is indefinitely malleable – and so can be shaped entirely by environmental conditioning (eg upbringing, training, propaganda, even individual choice). And if humanity is indefinitely malleable and there’s no human nature, then there’s nothing to choose between one conditioned outcome or way of life and any other, and moral relativism rules. In which case there’s no reason to prefer liberty over totalitarianism.

    That is where the doctrine that sex/gender and race are social constructs leads. And not a few of Ecksy’s “CM scum” understand this and intend a totalitarian outcome.

  6. Theo

    Why don’t you look up non sequitur? You are not doing a good job differentiating yourself from Ritchie.

  7. There is, Theo, no reason to regard sex or gender or race as social constructs to deny the existence of human nature.
    I don’t see any of those things as purely social constructs. They’re objectively real & independent of any social context. But heaven alone knows what you mean by “human nature”. Which human when, where?
    Of course morality’s relative. It doesn’t exist outside of the context of the society holding it. And before you talk about preferences between liberty over totalitarianism you’d need to define both in the context of the one doing the choosing. Because both can mean entirely different things to different people.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *