You are moving the argument. I am talking specifically of her complaints about the term “people who menstruate”. That is not a “situation in which sex and gender rights are in tension with each other”, is has nothing to do with women having sex-specific places, nor someone who is biologically male wanting access to one of those spaces. It has nothing to do with protecting women.
This is all as relevant as saying “She’s not transphobic, she is against stealing.” That’s all well and good, but completely irrelevant to this specific instance of transphobic bigotry that I am talking about.
Some women don’t menstruate
Correct
but a sex-based definition doesn’t exclude them from being “real women”
Agreed
They’re just women who don’t menstruate.
Therefore, if you were using the phrase “people who menstruate” the “correct” term for that would in fact not be “women” because there are women who do not menstruate.
I will agree with you on one point however:
You don’t have to agree with her worldview, but it’s overall coherent.
There’s several topics here. Explaining her views is responding to this
She’s coming from a place of “trans bad” then finding an excuse for it (protecting women)
She wants to protect women. She thinks that trans women aren’t women. It doesn’t start out with “trans bad”. It starts out with “protecting women” + “woman is defined by sex”. That’s all there is to it. If you don’t like it, convince her that the gender-based definition is better.
The whole “people who menstruate” thing is peak idpol and designed to waste our time arguing about it instead of developing class consciousness. You’re part of the problem. If we spent half the time wasted on this guillotining the ruling class we’d live in a better world already where people who menstruate are materially better off in every way.
Of course. You’ve argued about this and defended Rowling for days, but when I refuse to let you shift the argument and insist you defend your arguments it’s suddenly unimportant and a waste of time.
You are moving the argument. I am talking specifically of her complaints about the term “people who menstruate”. That is not a “situation in which sex and gender rights are in tension with each other”, is has nothing to do with women having sex-specific places, nor someone who is biologically male wanting access to one of those spaces. It has nothing to do with protecting women.
This is all as relevant as saying “She’s not transphobic, she is against stealing.” That’s all well and good, but completely irrelevant to this specific instance of transphobic bigotry that I am talking about.
Correct
Agreed
Therefore, if you were using the phrase “people who menstruate” the “correct” term for that would in fact not be “women” because there are women who do not menstruate.
I will agree with you on one point however:
Correct, it is the worldview of a bigot.
There’s several topics here. Explaining her views is responding to this
She wants to protect women. She thinks that trans women aren’t women. It doesn’t start out with “trans bad”. It starts out with “protecting women” + “woman is defined by sex”. That’s all there is to it. If you don’t like it, convince her that the gender-based definition is better.
The whole “people who menstruate” thing is peak idpol and designed to waste our time arguing about it instead of developing class consciousness. You’re part of the problem. If we spent half the time wasted on this guillotining the ruling class we’d live in a better world already where people who menstruate are materially better off in every way.
“She’s not a bigot, just a power hungry oligarch?”
Okay, so we can both agree she’s a piece of shit and people shouldn’t be helping her acquire more wealth?
Stop focusing on her. Stop participating in the online hate mob that exists to distract from class issues. Do something useful with your life.
Of course. You’ve argued about this and defended Rowling for days, but when I refuse to let you shift the argument and insist you defend your arguments it’s suddenly unimportant and a waste of time.