I've often argued that Kellie deserved Time's award for "Person of the Year" -- if not of the decade -- for that billboard campaign of hers. Talk about the writing on the wall and in more ways than one -- a line in the sand knocking into a cocked hat the demented claims of transloonie nutcases that "trans women are women".
For one thing, transwomen lack the ovaries that have to qualify as the sine qua non for membership in the "female" category, even apart from the requirement of being functional that biological "purists" insist on.
Though that definition -- i.e., adult human female -- is something of a poisoned chalice that women might be wise to not drink too deeply from. And that largely because that technical definition revokes women's "female" category membership cards at menopause. Which I think that Kellie, in notable contradistinction to too many feminists, has more or less accepted.
Sure. But the bone of contention is what does it take to qualify as male and female. As cases in point, the case of Tickle vs. Giggle -- a classic just for the name -- and of Imane Khelif in the recent Olympics have it that "female" is just a matter of genitalia. The Kindergarten Cop definitions: males have penises and females have vaginas, regardless of whether they're functional, ersatz, or courtesy of Dr. Frankenstein. Completely abrogating and repudiating any requirements to have any reproductive function at all.
The only other definitions on tap and of any currency at all are only the biological ones which are quite explicit in making functional gonads into the "necessary and sufficient conditions" for sex category membership.
The "function" may be faulty but the evolved psychology is still there. I've been waiting for an wv psychologist/biologist of greater status than me to write this defense but none have. It's in my drafts!
Quite agree on "the psychology is still there". Though that psychology is more or less what is meant by "gender", an entirely different kettle of fish from "sex". Why I quite liked your "sneaky fuckers" post -- and have touted it thither and yon -- for using "gender" to denote those "morphs". Though, maybe arguably, all of that psychology starts from the reproductive function. ICYMI, see this article, even the Intro and Abstract:
I've often argued that Kellie deserved Time's award for "Person of the Year" -- if not of the decade -- for that billboard campaign of hers. Talk about the writing on the wall and in more ways than one -- a line in the sand knocking into a cocked hat the demented claims of transloonie nutcases that "trans women are women".
For one thing, transwomen lack the ovaries that have to qualify as the sine qua non for membership in the "female" category, even apart from the requirement of being functional that biological "purists" insist on.
Though that definition -- i.e., adult human female -- is something of a poisoned chalice that women might be wise to not drink too deeply from. And that largely because that technical definition revokes women's "female" category membership cards at menopause. Which I think that Kellie, in notable contradistinction to too many feminists, has more or less accepted.
Only from a narrow biological perspective. Evolutionary perspectives are broader
Sure. But the bone of contention is what does it take to qualify as male and female. As cases in point, the case of Tickle vs. Giggle -- a classic just for the name -- and of Imane Khelif in the recent Olympics have it that "female" is just a matter of genitalia. The Kindergarten Cop definitions: males have penises and females have vaginas, regardless of whether they're functional, ersatz, or courtesy of Dr. Frankenstein. Completely abrogating and repudiating any requirements to have any reproductive function at all.
The only other definitions on tap and of any currency at all are only the biological ones which are quite explicit in making functional gonads into the "necessary and sufficient conditions" for sex category membership.
The "function" may be faulty but the evolved psychology is still there. I've been waiting for an wv psychologist/biologist of greater status than me to write this defense but none have. It's in my drafts!
Quite agree on "the psychology is still there". Though that psychology is more or less what is meant by "gender", an entirely different kettle of fish from "sex". Why I quite liked your "sneaky fuckers" post -- and have touted it thither and yon -- for using "gender" to denote those "morphs". Though, maybe arguably, all of that psychology starts from the reproductive function. ICYMI, see this article, even the Intro and Abstract:
Oxford Academic, Lehtonen, & Parker (2014); Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes; https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
And my open letter to the erstwhile reputable biological journal Cell which had asked, apparently in all seriousness, "Is 'sex' a useful category?":
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/is-sex-a-useful-category
But I'll definitely look forward to that defense of yours. 👍🙂