General News & Politics (18 Viewers)
- Thread starter Ocelot
- Start date
Kind of. A woman is an adult female human
https://quillette.com/2020/06/20/she-who-must-not-be-named/
https://quillette.com/2020/06/20/she-who-must-not-be-named/
Yeah. I'm still interested in hearing what the "inclusive" definitions are. It's really hard to come across clear answers>
Here's the clearest one I found:
In order to generate a definition of “woman” that is guided by the interests of feminist analysis and avoids the commonality and normativity problems, Haslanger creates an account of “woman” in which being a woman involves being a member of a social class in which one is systematically subordinated on the basis of (presumed) biological sex:
S is a woman iff
(i) S is regularly and for the most part observed or imagined to have certain bodily features presumed to be evidence of a female’s biological role in reproduction;
(ii) that S has these features marks S within the dominant ideology of S’s society as someone who ought to occupy certain kinds of social position that are in fact
subordinate (and so motivates and justifies S’s occupying such a position); and
(iii) the fact that S satisfies (i) and (ii) plays a role in S’s systematic subordination, that is, along some dimension, S’s social position is oppressive, and S’s satisfying (i)
and (ii) plays a role in that dimension of subordination.
Here's the clearest one I found:
In order to generate a definition of “woman” that is guided by the interests of feminist analysis and avoids the commonality and normativity problems, Haslanger creates an account of “woman” in which being a woman involves being a member of a social class in which one is systematically subordinated on the basis of (presumed) biological sex:
S is a woman iff
(i) S is regularly and for the most part observed or imagined to have certain bodily features presumed to be evidence of a female’s biological role in reproduction;
(ii) that S has these features marks S within the dominant ideology of S’s society as someone who ought to occupy certain kinds of social position that are in fact
subordinate (and so motivates and justifies S’s occupying such a position); and
(iii) the fact that S satisfies (i) and (ii) plays a role in S’s systematic subordination, that is, along some dimension, S’s social position is oppressive, and S’s satisfying (i)
and (ii) plays a role in that dimension of subordination.
Yeah. I'm still interested in hearing what the "inclusive" definitions are. It's really hard to come across clear answers>
Here's the clearest one I found:
In order to generate a definition of “woman” that is guided by the interests of feminist analysis and avoids the commonality and normativity problems, Haslanger creates an account of “woman” in which being a woman involves being a member of a social class in which one is systematically subordinated on the basis of (presumed) biological sex:
S is a woman iff
(i) S is regularly and for the most part observed or imagined to have certain bodily features presumed to be evidence of a female’s biological role in reproduction;
(ii) that S has these features marks S within the dominant ideology of S’s society as someone who ought to occupy certain kinds of social position that are in fact
subordinate (and so motivates and justifies S’s occupying such a position); and
(iii) the fact that S satisfies (i) and (ii) plays a role in S’s systematic subordination, that is, along some dimension, S’s social position is oppressive, and S’s satisfying (i)
and (ii) plays a role in that dimension of subordination.
Here's the clearest one I found:
In order to generate a definition of “woman” that is guided by the interests of feminist analysis and avoids the commonality and normativity problems, Haslanger creates an account of “woman” in which being a woman involves being a member of a social class in which one is systematically subordinated on the basis of (presumed) biological sex:
S is a woman iff
(i) S is regularly and for the most part observed or imagined to have certain bodily features presumed to be evidence of a female’s biological role in reproduction;
(ii) that S has these features marks S within the dominant ideology of S’s society as someone who ought to occupy certain kinds of social position that are in fact
subordinate (and so motivates and justifies S’s occupying such a position); and
(iii) the fact that S satisfies (i) and (ii) plays a role in S’s systematic subordination, that is, along some dimension, S’s social position is oppressive, and S’s satisfying (i)
and (ii) plays a role in that dimension of subordination.
Yeah. I'm still interested in hearing what the "inclusive" definitions are. It's really hard to come across clear answers>
Here's the clearest one I found:
In order to generate a definition of “woman” that is guided by the interests of feminist analysis and avoids the commonality and normativity problems, Haslanger creates an account of “woman” in which being a woman involves being a member of a social class in which one is systematically subordinated on the basis of (presumed) biological sex:
S is a woman iff
(i) S is regularly and for the most part observed or imagined to have certain bodily features presumed to be evidence of a female’s biological role in reproduction;
(ii) that S has these features marks S within the dominant ideology of S’s society as someone who ought to occupy certain kinds of social position that are in fact
subordinate (and so motivates and justifies S’s occupying such a position); and
(iii) the fact that S satisfies (i) and (ii) plays a role in S’s systematic subordination, that is, along some dimension, S’s social position is oppressive, and S’s satisfying (i)
and (ii) plays a role in that dimension of subordination.
Here's the clearest one I found:
In order to generate a definition of “woman” that is guided by the interests of feminist analysis and avoids the commonality and normativity problems, Haslanger creates an account of “woman” in which being a woman involves being a member of a social class in which one is systematically subordinated on the basis of (presumed) biological sex:
S is a woman iff
(i) S is regularly and for the most part observed or imagined to have certain bodily features presumed to be evidence of a female’s biological role in reproduction;
(ii) that S has these features marks S within the dominant ideology of S’s society as someone who ought to occupy certain kinds of social position that are in fact
subordinate (and so motivates and justifies S’s occupying such a position); and
(iii) the fact that S satisfies (i) and (ii) plays a role in S’s systematic subordination, that is, along some dimension, S’s social position is oppressive, and S’s satisfying (i)
and (ii) plays a role in that dimension of subordination.
Minneapolis City Council Advances Plan to Abolish Police Department
https://www.wsj.com/articles/minnea...plan-to-abolish-police-department-11593188831
https://www.wsj.com/articles/minnea...plan-to-abolish-police-department-11593188831
Punching any transgender (mtf or ftm) is a crime because both are still victims.
Even the feminists who want to claim in every instance that there is no biological gender differences will revert back from that shit instantaneously if you gave one a hard uppercut to the jaw.
They will also suddenly recognize the need for law enforcement and a justice system
Even the feminists who want to claim in every instance that there is no biological gender differences will revert back from that shit instantaneously if you gave one a hard uppercut to the jaw.
They will also suddenly recognize the need for law enforcement and a justice system
.