Yeah, honestly, screw the meme reply. What the absolute holy hell is “the intention of holding eggs” in your body?
I mean, pretty sure that covers a whole bunch of trans women and decidedly not a whole bunch of cis women, but that’s besides the point. What did she mean?
I fear there is a whole pseudoscientific terfy rabbit hole behind this and I don’t want to fall down that hole, but I kinda need to know if it’s a slip of the tongue or what.
If you listen to some people talk about evolution or ancient mysteries of the body, they love describing things by their supposed purpose.
I had a long argument with somebody once, trying to convince them that sex wasn’t for babies, even though that’s what it often results in.
So like, evolutionarily, sex produces babies, that’s why “it” “cares.” But, a bird doesn’t need to know what sex is or why it should want a baby to be motivated to do the thing that makes one. Similarly, a bee doesn’t need to know that it’s spreading pollen around, it just wants that sweet little flower juice.
I don’t remember why this argument was important to have, but I do remember them just not getting the distinction between “does” and “meant to.”
It’s just regular misogyny this time, in that they only see “real” women as capable of giving birth, and then tried to cover up medical problems that would get in the way of that with the word “intention”.
To me, it seems like she was going to only say “capability of holding eggs,” then thought about it and actually realized it would exclude some cis women, so she added “intention” as if it meant “would usually be capable of” but just used a bad word to imply that. I could be reading into it a bit much though.
Of course, that wouldn’t work either, since that could then include or exclude people with various assortments of chromosomes in which it’s undetermined as to if they would or would not typically have eggs, and would also just open a whole meta argument about how early in the developmental process there would or wouldn’t be “intention” for that to happen, which is entirely subjective.
Ew. Yeah. The implication for a normal person is that the woman would be doing the intenting.
That’s probably not the meaning or the implication. It’s probably some religious/iusnaturalist nonsense where the intent is God’s or nature’s or somesuch. Gross.
Like, “oh, you can’t have kids, but I meant you to, it’s just an accident. You’re just God’s little mistake, you”.
I’m very confused, isn’t the reply in support of trans people while the OP is clearly against them? Like why bother replying with that if you agree with the OP?
Because I thought there was more than one interesting thing about this so I pointed a different one out?
I mean, I know the Internet rewards polarization, but I didn’t realize it had gotten to the point where more than one concurrent observation was seen as controversial.
I guess you are misunderstanding “screw the meme” as implying I find the meme objectionable, maybe? I don’t, I mean “ignore the meme for a moment, what’s up with that other part of the response?”
I’m not asking why you replied. I’m saying why would the second person bother replying unless they disagreed with the OP. They sound like they’re in support of trans people, which would mean you’re disagreeing with that. But your comment doesn’t sound like you’re disagreeing with it, it sounds like you agree with them.
Your comment is very very confusing if you read the post as commenter number 1 saying something very transphobic, commenter number 2 giving a definition that disproves commenter number 1, and then commenter number 3 making a meme.
if you mean the post in the image, only the second post is transphobic. the first says you can’t “define a woman” without excluding people who are afab.
Yeah, honestly, screw the meme reply. What the absolute holy hell is “the intention of holding eggs” in your body?
I mean, pretty sure that covers a whole bunch of trans women and decidedly not a whole bunch of cis women, but that’s besides the point. What did she mean?
I fear there is a whole pseudoscientific terfy rabbit hole behind this and I don’t want to fall down that hole, but I kinda need to know if it’s a slip of the tongue or what.
She meant god.
If you listen to some people talk about evolution or ancient mysteries of the body, they love describing things by their supposed purpose.
I had a long argument with somebody once, trying to convince them that sex wasn’t for babies, even though that’s what it often results in.
So like, evolutionarily, sex produces babies, that’s why “it” “cares.” But, a bird doesn’t need to know what sex is or why it should want a baby to be motivated to do the thing that makes one. Similarly, a bee doesn’t need to know that it’s spreading pollen around, it just wants that sweet little flower juice.
I don’t remember why this argument was important to have, but I do remember them just not getting the distinction between “does” and “meant to.”
It’s just regular misogyny this time, in that they only see “real” women as capable of giving birth, and then tried to cover up medical problems that would get in the way of that with the word “intention”.
There are fights where wonen say you are a “real” mother only if you popped it out through the vagina, so no c-section.
Some people have so little to be proud about I guess 🤷🏼♀️
I intentionally ate an egg sandwich this morning, guess I’m a woman now
How you doin’
😎👉👉
To me, it seems like she was going to only say “capability of holding eggs,” then thought about it and actually realized it would exclude some cis women, so she added “intention” as if it meant “would usually be capable of” but just used a bad word to imply that. I could be reading into it a bit much though.
Of course, that wouldn’t work either, since that could then include or exclude people with various assortments of chromosomes in which it’s undetermined as to if they would or would not typically have eggs, and would also just open a whole meta argument about how early in the developmental process there would or wouldn’t be “intention” for that to happen, which is entirely subjective.
Ew. Yeah. The implication for a normal person is that the woman would be doing the intenting.
That’s probably not the meaning or the implication. It’s probably some religious/iusnaturalist nonsense where the intent is God’s or nature’s or somesuch. Gross.
Like, “oh, you can’t have kids, but I meant you to, it’s just an accident. You’re just God’s little mistake, you”.
It really gets worse the more you think about it.
I’m very confused, isn’t the reply in support of trans people while the OP is clearly against them? Like why bother replying with that if you agree with the OP?
Because I thought there was more than one interesting thing about this so I pointed a different one out?
I mean, I know the Internet rewards polarization, but I didn’t realize it had gotten to the point where more than one concurrent observation was seen as controversial.
I guess you are misunderstanding “screw the meme” as implying I find the meme objectionable, maybe? I don’t, I mean “ignore the meme for a moment, what’s up with that other part of the response?”
I’m not asking why you replied. I’m saying why would the second person bother replying unless they disagreed with the OP. They sound like they’re in support of trans people, which would mean you’re disagreeing with that. But your comment doesn’t sound like you’re disagreeing with it, it sounds like you agree with them.
Your comment is very very confusing if you read the post as commenter number 1 saying something very transphobic, commenter number 2 giving a definition that disproves commenter number 1, and then commenter number 3 making a meme.
if you mean the post in the image, only the second post is transphobic. the first says you can’t “define a woman” without excluding people who are afab.
if you mean this thread, i just see discussion.