In this world of the denial of sex
Andy Lewis on confusion between ontology and epistemology of sex
Much confusion appears to exist in popular discussion about the nature of sex. This has political importance at the moment, most visibly in recognition of people with trans identities in law and society. Confusions abound around conflations of the terms sex and gender, but, most fundamentally, about what a sex is, and what it means for an organism, animal or human, to have a sex. What is a sexed body? How can we tell what sex an organism is? Clear responses to these questions are so often lacking. And without that, policy, law and social arrangements are likely to be incoherent and unjust.
Much of that lack of clarity is deliberate, with the goal of convincing everyone that sex is how you identify as opposed to what you are.
I do not believe for one moment we can help improve the lives of people with gender dysphoria and trans identities if we rob all the relevant words that might objective describe those experiences of any stable and coherent meaning. And even more so, and despite [Sarah] Hearne’s wish to help women, we cannot help women if we cannot say what the word “woman” means. So intent is this article in denying the link between being a woman and being female, that an extraordinary statement is made,
But we should also bear in mind that women aren’t discriminated against because they have vaginas, or breasts, or even because they have babies. Having babies makes it easier to discriminate against us, but the pay gap still exists for childfree women. It goes back to gender – the “socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities” that have led women to be less valued than men in society.
Just what is it then that creates injustice and discrimination for women? To what are these “socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities” applied to if it is not being female and the sex that bears children? No suggestion is made.
Which is absurd. Why do male animals of many species fight each other for access to ovulating females? It’s not because of “gender.” Why do dominant male animals of many species monopolize ovulating females and attack them if they stray? Not because of “gender.”
It is difficult to think of a greater conceptual and ideological muddle than this that exists amongst educated people. The Skeptic magazine as the “home of critical thinking” has obviously absolved itself of the need for thought here, or indeed the need for consistency. Not a few days before, the magazine published another article which apparently appeared to know full well why women are subject to discrimination based on their sex, and that fact they have vaginas, when they wrote an article entitled “Virginity testing is as unscientific as it is sexist, but will banning these tests prove effective?”
Virginity testing can be described as barbaric, monstrous, revolting, (insert your own virtue signalling qualifier here). It denies women autonomy over their bodies, reinforces gender inequality and outright devalues their humanity. But virginity testing is a symptom of the underlying root cause, which is the violation of human rights and the oppression of women.
But what’s the underlying root cause of that? Eggs. It’s all about the eggs.
We can be sure that no virginity testing is applied to anyone with a penis. One of these articles is horribly wrong. Or worse, the second is horrifically “transphobic”. But in this world of the denial of sex, consistency is not required. Pointing out incoherence and inconsistency is the only crime.
Maybe we should skip the shirts and posters with the definition of “woman” and just make it “eggs.”
The pay gap exists for childfree women, because they are women. I don’t think the idea that women can have babies and will take off time for them is the direct reason behind paying women less; I think it is the justification apologists cook up. They pay women less because they are women. Because society values women so little. Because work that can be done by a woman is seen as lesser value, even if it is the most important work of keeping our society fed, clothed, and healthy. Because we are women. Not because we wear dresses, make up, and high heels. Those fashions were probably designed (maybe not the make up) because they actually make it harder for women. They are not appropriate for many kinds of work, and they make it harder to run away.
The gender presentation expected of us is the effect, not the cause, of our oppression. We are expected to fulfill these gender expectations because women are not held in high regard. We are seen as toys for men, as caretakers, as nurturers, as fuck toys, and as baby machines. All of that is because of our sex, our body, our breasts, our vaginas, our uteri, our ovaries. All women, even those who do not have all of the markers of womanhood, or don’t have them any longer, are undervalued.
That is something transwomen can never completely experience. If they can pass in a dress and a wig, they might get some of the crap from men. They might get crap from men (and women) for acting “sissy” if they can’t pass. But it isn’t the same. It isn’t the lifelong, from birth, drip drip drip of societal expectations and societal hatred. For some odd reason, they seem to envy us our oppression, our abuse. And they are angry when they don’t receive the same abuse, so they increase the abuse by turning every word of truth about their sex into a form of abuse more vile than beating and killing women. They convince themselves that the abuse of being called he when they know they are she is worse than a woman who is beat to death, or burned, or kicked, or raped, or undergoes FGM…they know it is worse. They feel it is worse. It must be that way, so they can experience the hatred, the vilification that women undergo. They can feel the devaluing. The humiliation. The condescension.
But I suspect they know it really isn’t the same. That’s why they can’t repeat the actual words Rowling said, or Navratilova said, or Meghan Murphy said. They can only spit out accusations and distortions of what they said, because to repeat the actual words is to acknowledge that they are not really abuse.
I disagree. The text quoted to support this assertion…
…makes no mention of ‘female’ or ‘sex’, using instead the heavily co-opted words ‘women’ and ‘gender’. By saying true things while avoiding the more explicit words, that article reads like it is attempting to straddle a line between he trendy new genderspeak and actual biology.
Come on, it’s not just about the eggs. It’s also about a uterus to gestate the fertilized egg to term. And before the development of formula, it was also about the breasts
This is why it’s so important that these women be silenced, and cancelled. If they are, then the only source people will have for what they have said will be those very accusations and distortions. TAs can only ever present epithets and strawmen, as an accurate presentation of the concerns of their opponents would show them to be reasonable and justified. They are forced to portray feminist defence of the rights, health, and safety of girls and women as a thin pretext to harm trans people, because to do otherwise would admit that trans demands do in fact conflict with the rights of women and girls.
Btw, evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne has discussed this article on his website.
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/04/11/the-skeptic-magazine-is-skeptical-about-two-sexes-in-humans-a-clear-thinker-sets-them-straight/#comment-1922339