Difference between revisions of "So what/if/Women have uteruses and ovaries"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Unless you are willing to deny womanhood to these people, you need to explain why they are allowed as exceptions while trans women are not. | Unless you are willing to deny womanhood to these people, you need to explain why they are allowed as exceptions while trans women are not. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Of equal importance is that "womanhood" goes way beyond reproduction, and many women (especially feminists) reject the idea that one's gender can be defined by reproductive biology. | ||
==Footnote== | ==Footnote== | ||
<references> | <references> | ||
<ref name=medtech>...in large part because medical technology does not yet make this possible, though it seems quite likely it will be one day do so.</ref> | <ref name=medtech>...in large part because medical technology does not yet make this possible, though it seems quite likely it will be one day do so.</ref> | ||
</references> | </references> | ||
Revision as of 02:23, 3 November 2020
| Irrelevant Comment: “Women have uteruses and ovaries.” |
Claim
It is often claimed that because women have uteruses and ovaries, a trans woman – who of course does not have a uterus or ovaries must not be really a woman[1] – is therefore not "really" a woman.
Reality
This ignores the large number of undisputed exceptions, including:
- cisgender women who have had their uteruses and ovaries removed
- cisgender women with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome
Unless you are willing to deny womanhood to these people, you need to explain why they are allowed as exceptions while trans women are not.
Of equal importance is that "womanhood" goes way beyond reproduction, and many women (especially feminists) reject the idea that one's gender can be defined by reproductive biology.
Footnote
- ↑ ...in large part because medical technology does not yet make this possible, though it seems quite likely it will be one day do so.