Drag wonders why that woman chose to say females instead of women. It’s a very odd way to phrase it, and the only practical consequence of the change is to exclude trans women. Was that the intention?
Well, women can be sexist too, even about one’s own gender, so indeed that’s a possibility. But as someone else mentioned on this thread, its usage seemed to predate trans really becoming known as being a thing (at least in the surgical sense).
So I - who really knows nothing and isn’t really involved, but nonetheless I’ll still tell you my opinion! (bc you asked, ofc:-) - say: when in doubt, check the other factors. Perhaps she merely needs educated. Or perhaps we should not nitpick every tiny thing. Then again, is it really nitpicking to tell a woman that she is a human being?
Anyway it still gets back to: is it a RED flag? And if so, what then - like is it worth having any further conversations at all with a person who uses such language? And for that, I say: use one’s best judgement.
Then again, perhaps my thinking is outdated - bc NOW it is used to exclude trans women. Sort of? In some contexts it is, while in others it might not?
But I can’t recall ever having used it personally, so I cannot really say why this would do such a thing.
It can be both! A lot of women, such as JK Rowling, think the only worth they have as women is having a uterus and being conditioned to think less of themselves by a patriarchal society. If trans women are valid, that means women don’t have to exist for making babies. That means women can be raised to have self esteem. The fact that these things are an option, and these women didn’t get to have that privilege, breaks their hearts. Growing up trans is traumatizing, but these TERFs only focus on the privileges, like not having to deal with periods. They’re jealous. Too jealous to accept it. They have to believe that womanhood is suffering, or they’d instead have to accept that the suffering they endured was unnecessary.
It is complex, and probably we can’t get too deep into it in this community, but yeah, a lot of people engage in fanciful thinking rather than live in reality - and some of those people are kind while some are the opposite. e.g. I want to be kind in thinking that as people age they find it harder to stretch themselves to consider new ideas - but is that even true, or just something that was made up, like will we become that way at some point? I used to think so… but I no longer do.
And in case you are wondering how you could have missed the point of what I was trying to say… it’s not you, as there simply isn’t one:-).
Most people get weaker as they age. But that’s because most people sit on their asses all day. Serious injuries do accrue, and they do make it harder. But back pain at 30 isn’t the way humans are supposed to work. The people who refuse to accept old age, and who keep working on their fitness, are the 60 year olds who run marathons. Not everyone gets to have that option, but it’s only the people who are both lucky AND stubborn who do. Nobody who lies down and accepts the passage of time gets to age gracefully.
Brains work the same way. People get lazy. They think what’s happening is inevitable. They stop exercising, and their fitness diminishes. Self fulfilling prophecy. The dumbest old people drag has known were the ones with low self esteem. The ones who believed in themselves stayed sharp.
Exactly - it’s like how Boomers claim to be the only ones with knowledge (“just do what we tell you, you stupid kids!”), as they hand nations (USA, UK, Germany upcoming, Brazil, and most every other nation on earth as well) over to totalitarian regimes. We used to fight the Nazis… now their kids have become them, or rather set their children upon the path to fairly soon become thus. So now I don’t know what to believe.
Though if women are females, and females are women, then if both were true, then why couldn’t either word fill in for one another - what am I missing here?
Though if women are females, and females are women,
But neither of those is true. Some “females” identify as men, and some “non-females” identify as women.
Also, think about the difference in the meaning of the words. One is an identity. One is biology; physical machinery. You know when corporations refer to people as “consumers”? It’s gross, right? Reducing complex three dimensional people to an economic function. Reducing people to a biological function is also gross.
Thank you. Though ten years ago this terminology was reversed, and people were arguing that “females” also referred to trans women. The terminology has shifted, in a much better direction imho, and so very many factors were involved e.g. as trans people (those who were “out” anyway) on the internet used to mostly come from Europe, vs. today where it is a more global movement.
So, JKR is a TERF okay (the R=radical, aka hostile not just misunderstood), but I don’t think we can assume this of every person, e.g. an 80 year old grandma (and someone raised by them) may use the word “female” without fully hostile intentions?
Hence flag, but I’m not 100% certain that it’s red. Even 90% certainty isn’t fully 100%.
But, I’m sure I said before yet it very much bears repeating: I could be wrong. Or thinker than I drunk I am:-) (/s btw, but only that last sentence)
Due to claims that drag is always changing the subject to drag’s pronouns, drag has a rule about talking about drag’s pronouns on threads that aren’t about them. Drag will only talk about drag’s pronouns if somebody says “I want to change the subject to drag’s pronouns”. Drag isn’t going to change the subject to drag’s pronouns, somebody else has to, and clearly state they are doing so.
Drag wonders why that woman chose to say females instead of women. It’s a very odd way to phrase it, and the only practical consequence of the change is to exclude trans women. Was that the intention?
Well, women can be sexist too, even about one’s own gender, so indeed that’s a possibility. But as someone else mentioned on this thread, its usage seemed to predate trans really becoming known as being a thing (at least in the surgical sense).
So I - who really knows nothing and isn’t really involved, but nonetheless I’ll still tell you my opinion! (bc you asked, ofc:-) - say: when in doubt, check the other factors. Perhaps she merely needs educated. Or perhaps we should not nitpick every tiny thing. Then again, is it really nitpicking to tell a woman that she is a human being?
Anyway it still gets back to: is it a RED flag? And if so, what then - like is it worth having any further conversations at all with a person who uses such language? And for that, I say: use one’s best judgement.
Then again, perhaps my thinking is outdated - bc NOW it is used to exclude trans women. Sort of? In some contexts it is, while in others it might not?
But I can’t recall ever having used it personally, so I cannot really say why this would do such a thing.
It can be both! A lot of women, such as JK Rowling, think the only worth they have as women is having a uterus and being conditioned to think less of themselves by a patriarchal society. If trans women are valid, that means women don’t have to exist for making babies. That means women can be raised to have self esteem. The fact that these things are an option, and these women didn’t get to have that privilege, breaks their hearts. Growing up trans is traumatizing, but these TERFs only focus on the privileges, like not having to deal with periods. They’re jealous. Too jealous to accept it. They have to believe that womanhood is suffering, or they’d instead have to accept that the suffering they endured was unnecessary.
It is complex, and probably we can’t get too deep into it in this community, but yeah, a lot of people engage in fanciful thinking rather than live in reality - and some of those people are kind while some are the opposite. e.g. I want to be kind in thinking that as people age they find it harder to stretch themselves to consider new ideas - but is that even true, or just something that was made up, like will we become that way at some point? I used to think so… but I no longer do.
And in case you are wondering how you could have missed the point of what I was trying to say… it’s not you, as there simply isn’t one:-).
Most people get weaker as they age. But that’s because most people sit on their asses all day. Serious injuries do accrue, and they do make it harder. But back pain at 30 isn’t the way humans are supposed to work. The people who refuse to accept old age, and who keep working on their fitness, are the 60 year olds who run marathons. Not everyone gets to have that option, but it’s only the people who are both lucky AND stubborn who do. Nobody who lies down and accepts the passage of time gets to age gracefully.
Brains work the same way. People get lazy. They think what’s happening is inevitable. They stop exercising, and their fitness diminishes. Self fulfilling prophecy. The dumbest old people drag has known were the ones with low self esteem. The ones who believed in themselves stayed sharp.
Exactly - it’s like how Boomers claim to be the only ones with knowledge (“just do what we tell you, you stupid kids!”), as they hand nations (USA, UK, Germany upcoming, Brazil, and most every other nation on earth as well) over to totalitarian regimes. We used to fight the Nazis… now their kids have become them, or rather set their children upon the path to fairly soon become thus. So now I don’t know what to believe.
Though if women are females, and females are women, then if both were true, then why couldn’t either word fill in for one another - what am I missing here?
But neither of those is true. Some “females” identify as men, and some “non-females” identify as women.
Also, think about the difference in the meaning of the words. One is an identity. One is biology; physical machinery. You know when corporations refer to people as “consumers”? It’s gross, right? Reducing complex three dimensional people to an economic function. Reducing people to a biological function is also gross.
Thank you. Though ten years ago this terminology was reversed, and people were arguing that “females” also referred to trans women. The terminology has shifted, in a much better direction imho, and so very many factors were involved e.g. as trans people (those who were “out” anyway) on the internet used to mostly come from Europe, vs. today where it is a more global movement.
So, JKR is a TERF okay (the R=radical, aka hostile not just misunderstood), but I don’t think we can assume this of every person, e.g. an 80 year old grandma (and someone raised by them) may use the word “female” without fully hostile intentions?
Hence flag, but I’m not 100% certain that it’s red. Even 90% certainty isn’t fully 100%.
But, I’m sure I said before yet it very much bears repeating: I could be wrong. Or thinker than I drunk I am:-) (/s btw, but only that last sentence)
I’ve seen you around Lemmy for a little while now. Why do you insist on referring to yourself in the 3rd person?
Due to claims that drag is always changing the subject to drag’s pronouns, drag has a rule about talking about drag’s pronouns on threads that aren’t about them. Drag will only talk about drag’s pronouns if somebody says “I want to change the subject to drag’s pronouns”. Drag isn’t going to change the subject to drag’s pronouns, somebody else has to, and clearly state they are doing so.