If gender is a social construct, what about age?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Women are less likely to become CEOs than men.

Isn't it important to be able for us to communicate what we mean by "women" and what we mean by "men" in that case?
Although I suppose if we conveniently say that "women" are no longer a category that can exist because it's just too inexact, we no longer have to worry about centuries of abuse and oppression and we have one fewer minority group. Hey, why don't we do that for ALL groups that have been oppressed and disadvantaged?

Generally it's not relevant whether (for example) a woman has a uterus or not. You don't CEO with your uterus, or do science with your uterus. In cases where uterus-having is relevant, I'm fine with something like "people who have a uterus" or "uterus-havers" -- or even "women who have a uterus", although that would exclude men (i.e., transmen) who have a uterus.

The existence of the uterus and it's function is the primary reason women have been oppressed and violated for centuries. Maybe having or not having a uterus doesn't have much to do with whether you are promoted to CEO, but the fact that women have them and their function has most certainly contributed to the fact that you might not get that promotion from a long view.

And I thought I was the only one but clearly one of those TERFs just showed up as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Women are less likely to become CEOs than men.

Isn't it important to be able for us to communicate what we mean by "women" and what we mean by "men" in that case?
Although I suppose if we conveniently say that "women" are no longer a category that can exist because it's just too inexact, we no longer have to worry about centuries of abuse and oppression and we have one fewer minority group. Hey, why don't we do that for ALL groups that have been oppressed and disadvantaged?

Generally it's not relevant whether (for example) a woman has a uterus or not. You don't CEO with your uterus, or do science with your uterus. In cases where uterus-having is relevant, I'm fine with something like "people who have a uterus" or "uterus-havers" -- or even "women who have a uterus", although that would exclude men (i.e., transmen) who have a uterus.

And yet, when we talk about women being CEO's less than we expect given women's percentage of the population and their success at things that lead up to being a CEO, we either know what we mean or we don't.

With the increased numbers of transgender people, should we stop paying attention to how many girls end up in tech and whether they're being discriminated against on their way to get into tech? Since we have more biological males saying they're women, that covers some portion of the inequality. Is that sufficient? Or are we still interested, especially if more transgender women end up in tech than one might expect proportionally? (I have no idea if this is true - I work in tech and I know more transgender women in some of the more esoteric positions than biological women, but that's just anecdote.)

If you make the categories meaningless "you can't explain what you mean by woman" then we can apply that to absolutely every other category. Sex has more foundation in biology than race does (race has none), which would allow us to easily define away all ability to discuss race-based oppression. Does that make you happy?

[Anonymous]

I self identify as a cat. Trust me, that is coming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course they do. All people with disabilities and medical conditions are considered people worthy of equal respect. That doesn't mean their condition says anything other than that they have a genetic anomaly. If you have an anomaly in your heart it doesn't speak to a larger question about whether there is a 'right' kind of heart. There is a right kind of heart that functions in an ideal way for human thriving and survival. The same is true for gender/sex. It doesn't mean there is ANYTHING wrong with people with heart defects or gender dysphoria.

Human beings have two legs! Except for the ones who don't.

Humans are bipedal. The occasional human born with some number other than 2 doesn't automatically become a non-human. They are a human with an anomaly. They are part of a bipedal species, even without having 2 legs.

This is true: The species Homo sapiens is bipedal.

This is not true: Human beings are bipedal. (Most are, some aren't.)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1571302/

Humans are bipedal. Members of the human species may individually have some alternate number of legs, but humans are bipedal.

Thanks for posting that. Although I think PPP (Pedantic Previous Poster) will find a way to argue with NIH.

Also, Humans are Homo Sapiens so I'm not even sure that her previous post makes sense.

PPP needs a new hobby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The existence of the uterus and it's function is the primary reason women have been oppressed and violated for centuries. Maybe having or not having a uterus doesn't have much to do with whether you are promoted to CEO, but the fact that women have them and their function has most certainly contributed to the fact that you might not get that promotion from a long view.

And I thought I was the only one but clearly one of those TERFs just showed up as well.

The idea that a woman's biology is her destiny used to be promoted by the anti-feminists. Actually it still is. Now it's being promoted by people who call themselves feminists, too. Weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The existence of the uterus and it's function is the primary reason women have been oppressed and violated for centuries. Maybe having or not having a uterus doesn't have much to do with whether you are promoted to CEO, but the fact that women have them and their function has most certainly contributed to the fact that you might not get that promotion from a long view.

And I thought I was the only one but clearly one of those TERFs just showed up as well.

The idea that a woman's biology is her destiny used to be promoted by the anti-feminists. Actually it still is. Now it's being promoted by people who call themselves feminists, too. Weird.

Women's biology is what people legislate against. It is what people use to call us 'too emotional'. The fact that we can procreate is what employers frown at when thinking about hiring a woman in her early 30s. Our children's existence in our 40s makes employers wonder if we would be 'committed'. The fact that we have them creates the wage gap essentially. We are put on hormonal birth control generally as teenagers, responsible for pregnancies if they happen unexpectedly.

I'm not saying a woman's biology defines her destiny, but women's biology has had incredible impacts on women throughout history. And therefore it impacts the societal issues facing women today. An individual woman may not be defined by her reproductive choices or her biology, but women are still being brought down by it as a group. To ignore that is to ignore reality and to once again, paint women as crazy for trying to speak up against marginalization of women's rights and agendas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Women's biology is what people legislate against. It is what people use to call us 'too emotional'. The fact that we can procreate is what employers frown at when thinking about hiring a woman in her early 30s. Our children's existence in our 40s makes employers wonder if we would be 'committed'. The fact that we have them creates the wage gap essentially. We are put on hormonal birth control generally as teenagers, responsible for pregnancies if they happen unexpectedly.

I'm not saying a woman's biology defines her destiny, but women's biology has had incredible impacts on women throughout history. And therefore it impacts the societal issues facing women today. An individual woman may not be defined by her reproductive choices or her biology, but women are still being brought down by it as a group. To ignore that is to ignore reality and to once again, paint women as crazy for trying to speak up against marginalization of women's rights and agendas.

I think I'm done here, other than to say that I'm sorry that you feel threatened by the existence of transwomen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Women's biology is what people legislate against. It is what people use to call us 'too emotional'. The fact that we can procreate is what employers frown at when thinking about hiring a woman in her early 30s. Our children's existence in our 40s makes employers wonder if we would be 'committed'. The fact that we have them creates the wage gap essentially. We are put on hormonal birth control generally as teenagers, responsible for pregnancies if they happen unexpectedly.

I'm not saying a woman's biology defines her destiny, but women's biology has had incredible impacts on women throughout history. And therefore it impacts the societal issues facing women today. An individual woman may not be defined by her reproductive choices or her biology, but women are still being brought down by it as a group. To ignore that is to ignore reality and to once again, paint women as crazy for trying to speak up against marginalization of women's rights and agendas.

I think I'm done here, other than to say that I'm sorry that you feel threatened by the existence of transwomen.

Out of curiosity before you go. Are you a trans woman? Or a man/woman/trans man?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Women are less likely to become CEOs than men.

Isn't it important to be able for us to communicate what we mean by "women" and what we mean by "men" in that case?
Although I suppose if we conveniently say that "women" are no longer a category that can exist because it's just too inexact, we no longer have to worry about centuries of abuse and oppression and we have one fewer minority group. Hey, why don't we do that for ALL groups that have been oppressed and disadvantaged?

Generally it's not relevant whether (for example) a woman has a uterus or not. You don't CEO with your uterus, or do science with your uterus. In cases where uterus-having is relevant, I'm fine with something like "people who have a uterus" or "uterus-havers" -- or even "women who have a uterus", although that would exclude men (i.e., transmen) who have a uterus.

The existence of the uterus and it's function is the primary reason women have been oppressed and violated for centuries. Maybe having or not having a uterus doesn't have much to do with whether you are promoted to CEO, but the fact that women have them and their function has most certainly contributed to the fact that you might not get that promotion from a long view.

And I thought I was the only one but clearly one of those TERFs just showed up as well.

The uterus has a lot to do with why there are fewer women in position like CEO than men. Men have used women's reproductive system as a way to systematically oppress women, through physical action like rape and forced child bearing, and also through social systems such as the concept of "hysteria" and women being too weak-minded to handle complicated things like reading, or voting, or thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The existence of the uterus and it's function is the primary reason women have been oppressed and violated for centuries. Maybe having or not having a uterus doesn't have much to do with whether you are promoted to CEO, but the fact that women have them and their function has most certainly contributed to the fact that you might not get that promotion from a long view.

And I thought I was the only one but clearly one of those TERFs just showed up as well.

The idea that a woman's biology is her destiny used to be promoted by the anti-feminists. Actually it still is. Now it's being promoted by people who call themselves feminists, too. Weird.

No. It's being acknowledged for its historical effects by feminists. The idea that a person's race was his destiny used to be promoted by slavers. Now it's being promoted by people who call themselves anti-racists. See how idiotic that sounds? You cannot address historical - and present - wrongs without acknowledging how they come to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Women's biology is what people legislate against. It is what people use to call us 'too emotional'. The fact that we can procreate is what employers frown at when thinking about hiring a woman in her early 30s. Our children's existence in our 40s makes employers wonder if we would be 'committed'. The fact that we have them creates the wage gap essentially. We are put on hormonal birth control generally as teenagers, responsible for pregnancies if they happen unexpectedly.

I'm not saying a woman's biology defines her destiny, but women's biology has had incredible impacts on women throughout history. And therefore it impacts the societal issues facing women today. An individual woman may not be defined by her reproductive choices or her biology, but women are still being brought down by it as a group. To ignore that is to ignore reality and to once again, paint women as crazy for trying to speak up against marginalization of women's rights and agendas.

I think I'm done here, other than to say that I'm sorry that you feel threatened by the existence of transwomen.

If trans people want to walk with women, then they need to stop taking over women's spaces. They need to acknowledge that there's a legitimate reason sports are sex segregated, and that homeless shelters are sex segregated, and that domestic abuse facilities are sex segregated. To do otherwise is to gaslight women, to not acknowledge that men are stronger and as a class are dangerous to women. And that through no fault of their own, they bear more physicality in common with men than with women. By pretending this isn't the case, they are very clearly broadcasting that they are going to act as men always have to women - they will force their will on us, no matter our thoughts or opinions, because they have decided they are more important.

If they don't want to act like men, they can work with us, and we can arrive at solutions that meet everyone's needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I self identify as a cat. Trust me, that is coming.

Then you should avoid a penalty under Obamacare and get your medical care at the vet hospital. Win-win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course they do. All people with disabilities and medical conditions are considered people worthy of equal respect. That doesn't mean their condition says anything other than that they have a genetic anomaly. If you have an anomaly in your heart it doesn't speak to a larger question about whether there is a 'right' kind of heart. There is a right kind of heart that functions in an ideal way for human thriving and survival. The same is true for gender/sex. It doesn't mean there is ANYTHING wrong with people with heart defects or gender dysphoria.

Human beings have two legs! Except for the ones who don't.

And no one would/should say anything bad about someone with one leg or some other situation, but they also would acknowledge that two legs is the biologically/evoluntionarily normal human condition.

Note the meaningful distinction between "Most human beings have two legs" and "Human beings have two legs".

This is where it becomes ridiculous. Anyone who gets offended by someone saying 'human beings have two legs' is being ridiculous. Humans are supposed to have two legs. There are a multitude of reasons a specific human might not have two legs. Those reasons are all medical conditions based on accidents or genetic anomalies. Do you object to saying 'dogs have four legs'? Some dogs have three legs. But if you go around muddying the waters on everything then you can't say anything at all. When I teach my kid about humans and dogs I say, 'dogs have four legs and humans have two legs' and then you talk about exceptions as they arise or when you talk about handicapped people.

I am a liberal with a transgender cousin who I fully support in living her life they way she wants to live it, but I do not think that she is neurotypical or that her brain works in a way that the human brain is evolutionarily designed to work.

Why? What if a human decide that he wants to get rid of one of his/her leg? What is the difference between cutting your leg off and cutting your penis off?

[Anonymous]

Age will never become a social construct like a gender. Having people who identify themselves as 60 y.o. and collecting social security benefits in their 20s -- no one is going to pay for that. You can make a lot of money of transgenders -- therapy, plastic surgens, big pharma -- they all benefit from brainwashing people into transgenderism and acceptance. What is the benefit of changing your age? Where is the money?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course they do. All people with disabilities and medical conditions are considered people worthy of equal respect. That doesn't mean their condition says anything other than that they have a genetic anomaly. If you have an anomaly in your heart it doesn't speak to a larger question about whether there is a 'right' kind of heart. There is a right kind of heart that functions in an ideal way for human thriving and survival. The same is true for gender/sex. It doesn't mean there is ANYTHING wrong with people with heart defects or gender dysphoria.

Human beings have two legs! Except for the ones who don't.

And no one would/should say anything bad about someone with one leg or some other situation, but they also would acknowledge that two legs is the biologically/evoluntionarily normal human condition.

Note the meaningful distinction between "Most human beings have two legs" and "Human beings have two legs".

This is where it becomes ridiculous. Anyone who gets offended by someone saying 'human beings have two legs' is being ridiculous. Humans are supposed to have two legs. There are a multitude of reasons a specific human might not have two legs. Those reasons are all medical conditions based on accidents or genetic anomalies. Do you object to saying 'dogs have four legs'? Some dogs have three legs. But if you go around muddying the waters on everything then you can't say anything at all. When I teach my kid about humans and dogs I say, 'dogs have four legs and humans have two legs' and then you talk about exceptions as they arise or when you talk about handicapped people.

I am a liberal with a transgender cousin who I fully support in living her life they way she wants to live it, but I do not think that she is neurotypical or that her brain works in a way that the human brain is evolutionarily designed to work.

Why? What if a human decide that he wants to get rid of one of his/her leg? What is the difference between cutting your leg off and cutting your penis off?

People with body dysmorphia exist. The treatment is like that for anorexia, to try and bring them around to reality, or learning how to cope with the fact that their healthy body includes two legs. You can read about some terribly sad stories about what people have done to themselves due to this mental illness.

We treat people who want to be the opposite sex differently for reasons I don't really understand. It seems to me that cutting the leg off of someone who thinks they shouldn't have that leg is just as valid treatment as turning a penis inside out and attempting to craft some sort of vagina-like hole in the body with it. The medical studies indicate this is a treatment for transgender people who feel dysmorphic in their bodies. We have people who think they shouldn't have two arms or two legs who also claim relief after they remove the offending limb, so I'm not sure why they're required to learn to live with their dysmorphia instead of being allowed to have their body altered to suit their beliefs.