She forgot to define “sex class”, which could be all sorts of things. She did that because either she doesn’t know shit about classes, or because she wants to just say “women are women goddamnit” without actually saying it.
And of course she doesn’t, because she can’t. She has a middle-school grasp of the subject, and she’s trying to define “woman” as “woman” by using the weasel word “class”.
I believe a woman is a human being who belongs to the sex class that produces large gametes. It’s irrelevant whether or not her gametes have ever been fertilised, whether or not she’s carried a baby to term, irrelevant if she was born with a rare difference of sexual development that makes neither of the above possible, or if she’s aged beyond being able to produce viable eggs. She is a woman and just as much a woman as the others.
I can only deduce that “sex class” is some kind of group where you produce large gametes, but it doesn’t matter if they’re viable.
I don’t have ovaries, but I had them at some point in my life. I can only surmise I’m not in the “sex class” woman according to Rowling, since I don’t produce large gametes, viable or not.
Yeah, except I’m pretty sure she disagrees. Weird, it’s almost as if any rational definition actually is actually automatically inclusive, except when you jump through a million hoops to make it less so.
A sex class is defined by the material conditions of the exploitation of labor it’s members experience while producing their respective gametes. Obviously.
Are you some sort of idiot needs a definition of each word used? That’s what dictionaries are for. Anyways she defines what she meant in the complete sentence. Arguing with me about whether or not she’s right is pointless, I didn’t make the statement, merely pointed out she did define it.
“A woman is someone who belongs to the sex class that produces large gametes.” That’s all she said. No word on what a sex class entails, or whether someone who no longer produces large gametes, or who should produce them but can’t due to a genetic defect, continues to be in it.
You have one more reply before I report you for being a troll.
AKA women who no longer produce large gametes are no longer women.
As a 58 year old, JK Rowling is, by her own definition, very unlikely to be a woman any longer.
That’s why she’s so mad all the time!
I mean at least read what she said. “Belongs to the sex class” doesn’t mean you’re a man at menopause.
She forgot to define “sex class”, which could be all sorts of things. She did that because either she doesn’t know shit about classes, or because she wants to just say “women are women goddamnit” without actually saying it.
Read the whole thing.
I did. She doesn’t define “sex class” anywhere.
And of course she doesn’t, because she can’t. She has a middle-school grasp of the subject, and she’s trying to define “woman” as “woman” by using the weasel word “class”.
I can only deduce that “sex class” is some kind of group where you produce large gametes, but it doesn’t matter if they’re viable.
I don’t have ovaries, but I had them at some point in my life. I can only surmise I’m not in the “sex class” woman according to Rowling, since I don’t produce large gametes, viable or not.
Sounds like being born with a condition that makes your bits not develop the same as your brain would qualify?
Yeah, except I’m pretty sure she disagrees. Weird, it’s almost as if any rational definition actually is actually automatically inclusive, except when you jump through a million hoops to make it less so.
Of course she’ll disagree.
A sex class is defined by the material conditions of the exploitation of labor it’s members experience while producing their respective gametes. Obviously.
What’s a sex class? How is it defined? Does it include age groups? How about hermaphrodites?
I mean you could just read what she said. Do hermaphrodite produce large gametes? Idk, probably not. Go look it up.
Yeah see the thing is she didn’t say anything like that. She just assumes everyone knows what a “sex class” is to avoid having to define it herself.
It’s literally in the posted picture. Read it again.
Show me where she says what those words mean.
Are you some sort of idiot needs a definition of each word used? That’s what dictionaries are for. Anyways she defines what she meant in the complete sentence. Arguing with me about whether or not she’s right is pointless, I didn’t make the statement, merely pointed out she did define it.
“A woman is someone who belongs to the sex class that produces large gametes.” That’s all she said. No word on what a sex class entails, or whether someone who no longer produces large gametes, or who should produce them but can’t due to a genetic defect, continues to be in it.
You have one more reply before I report you for being a troll.
There’s an in-depth documentary about this on pornhub, featuring acclaimed scholar Lisa Ann.
Of which the “class” of women after menopause would not be women then.
We haven’t yet got a definition of a man though, so presumably most older ‘women’ are non-binary in their world
Conservatives learn about set theory, transphobes in shambles.
trans men ⊆ men
trans women ⊆ women
nonbinary people ⊈ men + women
me ∈ your mom