Jesus, it’s way more dehumanizing to be thought of only in relation to checks notes Large Gametes than it is to simply accept that people of the same gender can be born with different bits.
It’s even worse than that. Individuals are a vessel for those gametes, not the gametes themselves. I’m sorry, but sperm aren’t fucking people Robert Rowling. You aren’t your cum or your period. Inhaling pollen during spring isn’t killing trees.
Joanne Galbraith’s conservative gender ideology values genes and bloodlines more than people. Living a good life doesn’t matter, only reproducing like e coli.
Phobes want the world to make sense because they think it’ll fill the emptiness in their soul. It’ll never work. The void can’t be filled that way.
Who are the people you’re talking about?
Joanne Rowling has released books under the name Robert Galbraith, and the poster above has mixed up the names for humourous effect.
Also Robert Galbraith Heath was a psychiatrist who was a big proponent of conversion therapy for queer people. Probably nothing to do with why Rowling chose that name…
Lol. Normally Elon just posts cringe that isnt funny in any way. But this is hilarious. “I love your transphobia, but have you tried thinking about literally anything else?” Like he wants her to start posting great replacement shit
man i love this comment i wish lemmy had awards
Awards are just bespoke emoji. You can still react to a comment with a picture or emoji if you want.
IMO your comment, actually expressing explicit and specific approval, is worth more than, like… a picture of a little whale with money coming out of its blowhole, or whatever.
🤣🤩💯✨😸❤️🧠🫀👀👁️👄👁️👍🙌🤟💆🫅🍃🔥🌋🌈🌠🐳🍑🍆🚨🏆🎖️🥇
“X isn’t just for Transphobia, it’s also for racism”
Biologist here. The main problem with this argument is that Rowling is trying to win her argument through scientizing, and is not only doing it in an inept way, but in a way that’s completely ironic.
She’s invoking biology, but infortunately she’s adopting an approach that incorporates a high school level of biology. When we start teaching science, we start with highly simplified presentations of the major topics, then build both in breadth and depth from there. If you really want to get down the rabbit hole of sex determination (and multiple definitions of genetic and phenotypical “sex”), you really need to get into molecular biology, genetics, and developmental biology. She’s been advised of this multiple times by multiple experts, so at this point it’s willful ignorance.
The painfully ironic part is that she’s relying on an area where she has no expertise in order to make her point, while ignoring the fact that, as a world-known literary figure, she should know that the applicable part of the definition of “woman” is linguistic and semiotic - which is to say it’s cultural. The definition of “woman” was different in the 1940s South, among the 17th century pilgrims, the Algonquin tribes, cultures throughout sub-equatorial Africa, and so on.
The definition of “woman” was different in the 1940s South, among the 17th century pilgrims, the Algonquin tribes, cultures throughout sub-equatorial Africa, and so on.
Can you give an example? Not trying to be a bigot, just curious.
There’s entire branches of research on this, but I think one of the easiest ways to approach it for starting out is to think of the word “womanly.”
having or denoting qualities and characteristics traditionally associated with or expected of women.
I would strike the word “traditionally” from that definition since we’re talking about a comparative and differential analysis and concentrate on the “qualities and characteristics” part. Although most people in the US today wouldn’t think of it this way, imagine the perception of a woman army officer commanding male troops in 1845. You can take the same approach when looking through history or across cultures. What roles, qualities, and characteristics are associated with “women” and how do they differ and evolve?
There’s some complexity when you get into the details - indigenous cultures change when they come into contact with, say, colonialism, and the people who studied them might themselves be observing through their own prejudices. History is replete with examples of British colonialists being unable to properly deal with things like the egalitarian democracies of the northern indigenous peoples or the matriarchal social structures. Picture the used car dealership where the salesman still insists on engaging with the man even though it’s the woman buying the car.
Semantics is the study of the meaning of words, and semiotics is the study of symbology. When we’re talking about these things, we’re talking about how the ideas and symbols associated with the idea-token “woman” differ.
The reason why this is important is that this is the crux of the transphobic argument. Their argument is cultural, not biological (although like I said, even their biology is sketchy).
I think a great study that includes cross cultural anthropological analysis of the role of women, as well as politics and economics, is David Graeber’s The Dawn of Everything.
here’s one example for you (click here) exploring igbo gender norms
here’s a second report that’s worth reading too (click here)
i don’t have much knowledge about the other cultures suggested, others can provide info for those
In examining sex and gender in Igbo society today, it is evident that colonisation was not just an event. Colonisation is a structure, an unhealed wound that remains open to this day, in the form of Western gender norms among multiple other manifestations.
Thank you for this article. Deeply interesting.
However, this was weakened by the flexible gender system of traditional Igbo culture and language. As Ifi explained, a major component of this gender framework was that “male roles were open to certain categories of women through such practices as “nhanye”- “male daughters” and “igba ohu” – “female husbands”
What, you’re telling me that boywives were real all along!?
