It’s not hard to understand. She is a TERF. Her statement was that she believes people with female sex characteristics must also be female gendered. It’s blatantly obvious to everyone but you.
TERFs use the sex-based definition of the word “woman”. That’s like, the whole point of being a TERF. She’s doing so right in the OP screenshot, saying “if <you are female>, it’s proof you are a woman”. I can’t spell it out more clearly to you than redirecting you to literally the OP, in which Rowling does precisely that.
That doesn’t mean you have to agree with the definition, that’s just a simple statement of fact.
You clearly disagree with the definition of “woman” that she’s using, which is fine. But you can’t invalidate her argument by relying on a definition she doesn’t agree with in the first place.
So you’re saying her post was an attempt to say that only female sex people have ovaries? A factually inaccurate statement? Or is it that female sex people with a non-functioning uterus are still female sex, a position that nobody is arguing against?
You’re being willfully blind to her bigotry at this point
What exactly do you mean by “ovaries”? If you mean “functional ovaries”, then you’re incorrect. You might be thinking of ovotestes, in which some people have what’s known as streak gonads, which is a non-functional bit of tissue. Most people (including biologists) wouldn’t consider that “ovaries”, much in the same way that a flake of skin isn’t a human.
No (human) male has mature, functioning ovaries, only (human) females do. If you want to take the most uncharitable reading of Rowlings’ tweet (for argument’s sake), then she was still 99.999+% correct, and you can make her statement 100% correct by adding “[only]” before “egg-producing”.
The phrasing “sex is defined by the type of gametes one’s body is organized around producing” is often used because it handles even the case of ovotestes or gonadal dysgenesis, for when you want to be pedantically correct. I personally think it’s silly to crucify her for phrasing that can be interpreted uncharitably, but to each their own.
You’re really gonna sit here and try to convince people that a known TERF who is vocally anti-trans made a tweet about people with ovaries being women and it wasn’t an attempt to tell trans people that they aren’t actually their gender?
Even if her only goal was to remind trans men that they’ll never be male sex, or trans women that they’ll never be female sex, that still makes her a bigot and an asshole.
Your apologia for her hateful nature is disgusting
Yes, she was talking about sex and not gender. I’m not saying that she’s not being an asshole, merely saying that she’s correctly talking about sex. If you want to hate on her, hate on her for the right reasons.
It’s not hard to understand. She is a TERF. Her statement was that she believes people with female sex characteristics must also be female gendered. It’s blatantly obvious to everyone but you.
TERFs use the sex-based definition of the word “woman”. That’s like, the whole point of being a TERF. She’s doing so right in the OP screenshot, saying “if <you are female>, it’s proof you are a woman”. I can’t spell it out more clearly to you than redirecting you to literally the OP, in which Rowling does precisely that.
That doesn’t mean you have to agree with the definition, that’s just a simple statement of fact.
You clearly disagree with the definition of “woman” that she’s using, which is fine. But you can’t invalidate her argument by relying on a definition she doesn’t agree with in the first place.
So you’re saying her post was an attempt to say that only female sex people have ovaries? A factually inaccurate statement? Or is it that female sex people with a non-functioning uterus are still female sex, a position that nobody is arguing against?
You’re being willfully blind to her bigotry at this point
What exactly do you mean by “ovaries”? If you mean “functional ovaries”, then you’re incorrect. You might be thinking of ovotestes, in which some people have what’s known as streak gonads, which is a non-functional bit of tissue. Most people (including biologists) wouldn’t consider that “ovaries”, much in the same way that a flake of skin isn’t a human.
No (human) male has mature, functioning ovaries, only (human) females do. If you want to take the most uncharitable reading of Rowlings’ tweet (for argument’s sake), then she was still 99.999+% correct, and you can make her statement 100% correct by adding “[only]” before “egg-producing”.
The phrasing “sex is defined by the type of gametes one’s body is organized around producing” is often used because it handles even the case of ovotestes or gonadal dysgenesis, for when you want to be pedantically correct. I personally think it’s silly to crucify her for phrasing that can be interpreted uncharitably, but to each their own.
You’re really gonna sit here and try to convince people that a known TERF who is vocally anti-trans made a tweet about people with ovaries being women and it wasn’t an attempt to tell trans people that they aren’t actually their gender?
Even if her only goal was to remind trans men that they’ll never be male sex, or trans women that they’ll never be female sex, that still makes her a bigot and an asshole.
Your apologia for her hateful nature is disgusting
Yes, she was talking about sex and not gender. I’m not saying that she’s not being an asshole, merely saying that she’s correctly talking about sex. If you want to hate on her, hate on her for the right reasons.