• eureka@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I don’t get where do they see the accomplishment in defining “woman” as “biological woman”

    It just seems like a mental-gymnastic pseudo-intellectual way of just saying “female”. It’s a weird coping mechanism to try and handle the idea that a feminine gender (woman) doesn’t have to match to a biological sex category (female). And yes, you’re right, biology is complex and doesn’t just have two neat sex categories.

    • guillem@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      They should force the SC pronounce itself as to what tf means that for them. I’d bet they are unable to give a definition of “biological woman” that doesn’t leave out a lot of what they think “true women” are. Carriers of two X chromosomes? Outliers. Carriers of no Y chromosomes? Outliers. Possessors of a uterus? Outliers. Producers of the big gamete (Rowling’s favourite) unless-unable-to-due-to-a-condition-that-is-morally-acceptable? Outliers everywhere. Then those outliers should sue.

      Also curious why they aren’t worried about defining men. They should be forced to unless they want to tacitly be defining men as non-women. Which would be funny, but probably undesirable for them.