Jordan Levi
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
i believe you may have edited your reply. in the email i got, you’d also added at the end:
“Would you, as a male, please explain what a women is? Maybe I am too dumb and not confident enough to understand it myself!”
so i’ll do just that.
a woman is an adult human female. every english-speaking dictionary uses roughly that same definition.
i doubt we disagree on what constitutes an “adult” or a “human.” the issue with your group comes with the definition of the word “female.”
a female is an organism who, after gonadal differentiation, developed a reproductive anatomy which is designed to produce large gametes, whether it actually does or if there are any errors along the way. sexual dimorphism began 1.2 billion years ago, long before humanity could engage in social construction. in the vast majority of multicellular organisms, there are only 2 sexes: one that produces large gametes (ova) and another that produces small gametes (sperm).
in humans specifically, as well as in all mammals in general to my understanding, our reproductive systems develop from wolffian ducts (male) or mullerian ducts (female). both cannot fully develop in humans. intersex conditions happen in 0.018% of births (aside from CAH, which occurs in 1.5%, but this condition only affects females), but even those with intersex conditions only developed one of these ducts, so they are atill either male ir female.
now, can you please tell everyone what your definitions of a woman and a female are.
you’re trying to change the subject cuz you don’t feel confident in your case. you don’t want to tackle our disagreement from first principles cuz you know your definition of womanhood would be seen as illogical by anyone unfamiliar with every angle of this issue.
i agree with you on both points, james. this isn’t even an issue i personally want to tackle, but it’s so ludicrous while simultaneously being written into law, so it’s impossible for me to ignore. i would much rather deal with socialist propaganda, but the idea that the more than half of the population we (or at least i) refer to as women should instead be referred to as “breeders” or “menstruators” is dehumanizing and completely indefensible. this is aside from the issue of sports awards or scholarships being taken by men, for example. the issue here is that i don’t believe emma would agree with us on the second point, since i guarantee you their definition of womanhood is different than ours (or at least mine). i want them to set forth their case so nobody can say i’m exaggerating.
i have no issue with trans people. i have an issue with self-ID and the redefinition of important terms, especially when those new definitions have no falsifiability. i would like them to give their definition of what a woman is so everyone knows what i mean.
i wasn’t aware of any disagreements between Marx and RadFems on the nature of capitalism, DJP. i’m more than happy to discuss that at some point, but that’s not the issue at hand.
the principal difference between scientific and transgender theory is a disagreement on what a man and a woman are. i could break down this group’s entire ideology for you guys, but i feel like you might not believe me if i were to do it myself. i want emma to tell you what they believe themselves so everyone here knows i’m not making anything up.
emma, can you please tell everyone what you think the definition of a woman is.
i don’t have any ire towards sex workers, aj. just the sex industry. women should be given better opportunities.
you’re trying to change the subject, emma. i’m not gonna engage with your criticism of my RT. you need to tell everyone what you think the definition of a woman is if you actually want to have a good faith conversation about this.
LMAOOOO!!!!! omg, this is fuckin GREAT! im using this in the funnies section of the next World Socialist, thank you! XD
i wouldnt suggest joining the DSA or trying to work with them, but maybe passing out pamphlets at some of their get togethers might be smart. or even attending some of their meetings to ask questions intended to show them the fact that marx and engels were anti-reformist cuz its just running in place. which im willing to bet most of their members arent aware of there being a difference between genuine, marxist socialism and theyre brand of “socialism”, being reformism. i know i wasnt aware of that before i read anything from him. i was a huge bernie supporter in 2016, so i was basically reformist at one point, i just didnt know it. i think its just about showing the average DSA member that
the points that he agreed with the founders of the WSPUS, which i would agree is noteworthy for that time and his overall accomplishments, even considering these bad ideas. influential people can, unfortunately, still have bad convictions
