4 ms·

I'm merely responding with the bad faith reading you're presenting here, as woman is a squishy and cultural word to describe an additionally squishy biological

I'm merely responding with the bad faith reading you're presenting here, as woman is a squishy and cultural word to describe an additionally squishy biological set of states. At no point does the article declare them not to be women, only that they are women with genetic conditions from having a Y chromosome (or even just a section of the Y chromosome), a shorthand of which they call "genetically men".

Kye 1y ago
I forget the details, but someone asserting clear lines on Twitter some years ago was asked to define woman, and people kept hitting them with examples that matched the proposed definition like chairs and horses.
- EnergyAmy 1y ago
  It's not squishy, and it's not hard. Woman means adult female human, and female means someone that produces the larger of two gamete sizes. That's the real, literal biological definition. Since I'm rate limited, to be slightly more specific, it's the gamete size one would or should produce. I elided that part but biologists are well aware of disorders of development. Another edit: This has nothing to do with religion or any sort of intelligent design woo. Read "should" as "would if it were mature and healthy".
  - Kye 1y ago
    Good luck with that.
  - Volundr 1y ago
    > and female means someone that produces the larger of two gamete sizes. So what if someone produces no gametes? Are those sterile from birth neither men nor women?
  - GuinansEyebrows 1y ago
    > should that's doing a lot of heavy lifting. i don't mean to single this specific instance out, but i think therein lies a key component of the "controversy" - human beings allow themselves to believe that there is an implied or intentional order (God, "science" or something else guiding things). this may be the case, or it really may just be the eventual result of evolution over a long-enough time period. personally... if there is a god/s worthy of worship, i can't fathom trying to interpret their will or intent of what "should" be, and i believe anybody who claims to know is either suffering from grandiosity, or a liar. that's why i don't treat arguments of "should" that come from an implied knowledge of the meaning of life very seriously. the only "should" i really think matters is that we "should" treat each other with respect and stop trying to box people into neat categories based on our disdain of their outward expression of their own lived experience.

Kye 1y ago

I forget the details, but someone asserting clear lines on Twitter some years ago was asked to define woman, and people kept hitting them with examples that matched the proposed definition like chairs and horses.

EnergyAmy 1y ago
It's not squishy, and it's not hard. Woman means adult female human, and female means someone that produces the larger of two gamete sizes. That's the real, literal biological definition. Since I'm rate limited, to be slightly more specific, it's the gamete size one would or should produce. I elided that part but biologists are well aware of disorders of development. Another edit: This has nothing to do with religion or any sort of intelligent design woo. Read "should" as "would if it were mature and healthy".
- Kye 1y ago
  Good luck with that.
- Volundr 1y ago
  > and female means someone that produces the larger of two gamete sizes. So what if someone produces no gametes? Are those sterile from birth neither men nor women?
- GuinansEyebrows 1y ago
  > should that's doing a lot of heavy lifting. i don't mean to single this specific instance out, but i think therein lies a key component of the "controversy" - human beings allow themselves to believe that there is an implied or intentional order (God, "science" or something else guiding things). this may be the case, or it really may just be the eventual result of evolution over a long-enough time period. personally... if there is a god/s worthy of worship, i can't fathom trying to interpret their will or intent of what "should" be, and i believe anybody who claims to know is either suffering from grandiosity, or a liar. that's why i don't treat arguments of "should" that come from an implied knowledge of the meaning of life very seriously. the only "should" i really think matters is that we "should" treat each other with respect and stop trying to box people into neat categories based on our disdain of their outward expression of their own lived experience.