• LefterShark@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    17 days ago

    Velma did not suggest that pregnant woman were stupid, emotional, or incapable of supporting themselves. She simply made reference to objective physically measurable things.

    Did anyone ever say she did?

    • velma@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      17 days ago

      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.

      • LefterShark@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        17 days ago

        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.

        • velma@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          17 days ago

          Cis women’s brains are rewired during pregnancy in relation to caring and protecting their newborns. I thought it was fitting within this topic.

    • isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      17 days ago

      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.”