t seems like only yesterday that everyone knew what a woman was: based
on articles about them in the UK Daily Mail, a woman is a person
who has at least twenty pairs of shoes and has many tattoos and fake
gigantic body parts. So they may not be 100%
real but close enough for the USDA to classify them as such.
Oh yes, they also have two X chromosomes and can, at least theoretically, produce smaller versions of themselves.
Their existence is easy to prove: if women don't exist, where is all that complaining coming from?
It's a sign of how quickly ideology can drag you kicking and screaming away from reality that women have now largely given up on convincing us they need special protection because men are misogynist and are now forced to convince us that they do in fact exist.
The New York Times is even more confused. In one article, a person named Pamela Paul who claims to be one of those “women” whose existence is now in dispute says that left and right wingers are both erasing them. How is the right doing this? By “banning abortion rights.”
Roe v Wade was overturned because it had no basis in the US Constitution. I'm sympathetic to her cause, but does Paul understand any of this? Do those complaining about it recognize the importance of preventing the Court from legislating from the bench?
Paul says the term ‘woman’ previously had a specific meaning tied to genetics, biology, and culture. “No longer. In its place are unwieldy terms like ‘pregnant people,’ ‘menstruators’ and ‘bodies with vaginas.’”
But then she writes: “Women, of course, have been accommodating. They've welcomed transgender women into their organizations.” So a guy who claims to be a woman is a woman, which means there is no essential thing that defines them, yet we are to believe they exist, which means there is an essential thing that defines them.
It's wonderful that feminists are starting to revise their strategy. A problem for feminism has been that it is a movement based on group identity and therefore irredeemably left wing. Anyone who deviates from the group ideology, which now includes not just men but some women, is automatically ‘frightened’, ‘misogynist’, and part of a ‘backlash’. Willingness to accept logical contradictions acts as a shibboleth for ideologues.
Maybe one reason conservatives criticized feminism for so long had something to do with this tendency to deny biological reality and cite half-truths. Instead of being happy to discover new allies, some gender-critical feminists just argue over who was first.
Janice Fiamengo also takes conservatives to task for, she says, making the same arguments that the left does: namely, asserting that women have no agency when it comes to abortion. Fiamengo pulls no punches:
Like many people in our society, conservatives are unable to admit the reality of female evil: that hundreds of thousands of women every year in America make the decision to kill their unborn children not under duress or out of fear or because they were lied to but for reasons of convenience, selfishness, and gross indifference to the life within them.
If women have agency, and if all abortion really is equivalent, it follows that the blame for choosing to advance one's career by killing another human being, as pro-lifers believe it is, should go to them. By this argument, a woman who has an abortion should go to prison.
My impression was that those conservatives Fiamengo criticizes were just trying to speak in the language of their opponents. That's an admirable tactic that could help us find solutions, but it's not always easy. As one leftist explained to me, they believe there are an infinite number of sexes and one may change from one to the other at will.
One divided by infinity is zero, so given that the number of humans is finite, by simple arithmetic neither men nor women exist.
Communication is impossible when common words are redefined. This might be why people do it: to inhibit criticism by redefining the language. Nevertheless, scientifically the answer is clear: there is only sex. There are two and only two sexes among humans. Nobody “is” any gender. It is gender, not women, and certainly not sex, that exists only in a person's head and is therefore constructed and mostly imaginary.
Both sides are getting closer to my point of view, which is that nothing exists. A world in which the humans are this nutty cannot be real. No, it must be a vast computer simulation to find out how much stress and lunacy we can handle without going stark raving mad. It looks like whoever's running this fake universe may soon get an answer.
jul 05 2022, 4:53 am. last updated jul 17, 10:28 am
