Humans have a small degree of sexual dimorphism. And that extends to neurology. Those minute differences get magnified many fold by cultural norms, but we’re physical beings made of atoms. We’re not disembodied spirits floating in the astral plane. We’re sexually dimorphic on the outside and on the inside. And most of what differences do exist are a function of hormones rather than genetics.
An example of this magnification is seen externally in something like size and strength. Men naturally are a bit larger and stronger than women. This is an objective and undeniable physical reality. But what gets tacked onto that is a bunch of stuff that isn’t scientific or rational. People irrationally use this small kernel of truth to conclude that women are unsuitable for certain careers that involve a lot of physical labor. A real physical example of sexual dimorphism gets wildly blown out of proportion by culture.
We can acknowledge these differences without embracing stereotypes. We can reject bioessentialism without veering into unscientific mysticism.
We don’t need to act like conservatives. We don’t need to pillory someone who acknowledges very real and objective matters of human biology. Velma did not suggest that pregnant woman were stupid, emotional, or incapable of supporting themselves. She simply made reference to objective physically measurable things.
It’s disappointing to see someone slander someone as a Terf or to imply that they said things that they never claimed. I get that this can be a triggering topic, but there’s a fine line between rejecting irrational stereotypes and becoming as anti-science as a Republican.
Velma did not suggest that pregnant woman were stupid, emotional, or incapable of supporting themselves. She simply made reference to objective physically measurable things.
This is pretty disappointing to read and leans into the TERF angles of “female/male socialisation” and bioessentialism.
And that’s before we get into the fact that not all cis women become mothers.
It was pretty heavily implied with this comment that I was resorting to bio-essentialism in order to other transpeople when I was referencing an objective physical process that happens during pregnancy.
It might have been a fun little fact you wanted to share, but it gets perceived in relation to conversation about women’s inclination to being protectors.
Try diagramming Mia’s argument. It’s a core part of the argument, it’s just left for the reader to imply. At best, this was done because Mia assumed the reader would be intelligent enough to connect the dots. At worse, it’s a mott-and-bailey argument, pulling the old Charlie Kirk trick of heavily implying something (to the point of being a core part of an argument), and then pretending offense because “I never said that.”
Humans have a small degree of sexual dimorphism. And that extends to neurology. Those minute differences get magnified many fold by cultural norms, but we’re physical beings made of atoms. We’re not disembodied spirits floating in the astral plane. We’re sexually dimorphic on the outside and on the inside. And most of what differences do exist are a function of hormones rather than genetics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism_in_human_physiology#Brain_and_nervous_system
An example of this magnification is seen externally in something like size and strength. Men naturally are a bit larger and stronger than women. This is an objective and undeniable physical reality. But what gets tacked onto that is a bunch of stuff that isn’t scientific or rational. People irrationally use this small kernel of truth to conclude that women are unsuitable for certain careers that involve a lot of physical labor. A real physical example of sexual dimorphism gets wildly blown out of proportion by culture.
We can acknowledge these differences without embracing stereotypes. We can reject bioessentialism without veering into unscientific mysticism.
We don’t need to act like conservatives. We don’t need to pillory someone who acknowledges very real and objective matters of human biology. Velma did not suggest that pregnant woman were stupid, emotional, or incapable of supporting themselves. She simply made reference to objective physically measurable things.
It’s disappointing to see someone slander someone as a Terf or to imply that they said things that they never claimed. I get that this can be a triggering topic, but there’s a fine line between rejecting irrational stereotypes and becoming as anti-science as a Republican.
Did anyone ever say she did?
It was pretty heavily implied with this comment that I was resorting to bio-essentialism in order to other transpeople when I was referencing an objective physical process that happens during pregnancy.
It might have been a fun little fact you wanted to share, but it gets perceived in relation to conversation about women’s inclination to being protectors.
Cis women’s brains are rewired during pregnancy in relation to caring and protecting their newborns. I thought it was fitting within this topic.
Try diagramming Mia’s argument. It’s a core part of the argument, it’s just left for the reader to imply. At best, this was done because Mia assumed the reader would be intelligent enough to connect the dots. At worse, it’s a mott-and-bailey argument, pulling the old Charlie Kirk trick of heavily implying something (to the point of being a core part of an argument), and then pretending offense because “I never said that.”
Thank you