All of those ways include a male and a female as far as I know?

Nope! Sperm has been synthesised effectively from egg and used to fertilise another egg. Successful birth with this method has been achieved in animals, in humans birth has not yet been tried, it's slowed down due to regulations

Gender is what you are describing as socially constructed as per textbook definition.

Your textbooks are clearly outdated. That's fine, sociology and gender theory evolve. Read some queer theory, in particular Judith Butler.

if your battle is just about the terminology of how to classify someone's anatomy

It's not just about terminology, it's about the social constructs that are inexorably linked with that terminology. It's not overcomplication to point out that only a tiny fraction of observable sex (fertility) is actually immutable, and even that won't be for long. All others are both mutable and socially chosen to represent sex.

Out of curiosity do you mind me asking what part of the world you live in?

I do mind, sorry, my points aren't linked to any particular country or culture and so I wouldn't want you categorising them as such, intentionally or not.

[-] flying_wotsit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

That may have been true once, but no longer -- there are no shortage of ways for queer couples (or, for that matter, infertile cishet couples) to have children.

Even if we assume that reproductive categories are so supremely important that we should socially categorise based on them (which I reject), that just brings us back to my original point. Why are infertile people still categorised into a binary sex that has nothing to do with their reproductive capability?

Because sex as we culturully underatand it is socially constructed. We use markers that don't reflect reproductive reality. Perhaps once they were the best proxies we had for a guess at reproductive capacity, but not any more.

Even if you want to separate sex and gender and define sex using sexual characteristics (not actually a good idea, see works by Judith Butler and Julia Serano among others, although I wont fight that point here), almost no sexual characteristics are immutable. The only ones that I can think of are chromosomes and gametes, but chromosomes aren't even binary (or observable without a microscope) and gametes arent a good basis either -- should being infertile affect your sex?

[-] flying_wotsit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 month ago

Disdain for an entire country of diverse people based on the (stupid, bad) actions of the minority in power is a bit much...

[-] flying_wotsit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 1 month ago

Really interesting link, thanks for sharing.

Anarchism does not (necessarily) call for a total lack of organisational structure, first and foremost it calls for the abolition of unjust hierarchies. I think a lot of anarchists would broadly agree with the main points of that article.

If you think there is no viable alternative to captitalism, I'd highly recommend the book "Capitalist Realism" by Mark Fisher, which tackles that very subject :)

[-] flying_wotsit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 24 points 1 month ago

btw please write "trans woman" instead of "transwoman", I'm sure you didn't intend it but the latter is frequently used by as a dog-whistle by fascists to avoid admitting we are women.

[-] flying_wotsit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yup, that's what DMA should solve (edit: or, rather, will solve, when Whatsapp fully complies with it)

[-] flying_wotsit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 3 months ago

ah, hopefully with the Digital Markets Act in the EU, reliable bridging to Matrix with E2EE intact will come quickly. You can already bridge (e.g. I run mautrix-whatsapp), but its not in an ideal state

[-] flying_wotsit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 5 months ago

Machine Unlearning is a very active field right now but basically ~~no~~ not really

[-] flying_wotsit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 6 months ago

The world doesn't (need to) run on giving only what you owe. People donate to creators not through moral obligation, but because they like what the creator has made and they want to reward them for it and/or enable them to make more of it.

Why do you think Patreon (and others) is so popular? Any cynic would surely point out that from a purely transactional outlook, the donors are getting a bad deal. And yet.

[-] flying_wotsit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 8 months ago

Jesse what the fuck are you talking about

view more: next ›

flying_wotsit

joined 8 months ago