• Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      6 months ago

      I did. She doesn’t define “sex class” anywhere.

      And of course she doesn’t, because she can’t. She has a middle-school grasp of the subject, and she’s trying to define “woman” as “woman” by using the weasel word “class”.

      I believe a woman is a human being who belongs to the sex class that produces large gametes. It’s irrelevant whether or not her gametes have ever been fertilised, whether or not she’s carried a baby to term, irrelevant if she was born with a rare difference of sexual development that makes neither of the above possible, or if she’s aged beyond being able to produce viable eggs. She is a woman and just as much a woman as the others.

      I can only deduce that “sex class” is some kind of group where you produce large gametes, but it doesn’t matter if they’re viable.

      I don’t have ovaries, but I had them at some point in my life. I can only surmise I’m not in the “sex class” woman according to Rowling, since I don’t produce large gametes, viable or not.

      • bitchkat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        irrelevant if she was born with a rare difference of sexual development that makes neither of the above possible,

        Sounds like being born with a condition that makes your bits not develop the same as your brain would qualify?

        • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          Yeah, except I’m pretty sure she disagrees. Weird, it’s almost as if any rational definition actually is actually automatically inclusive, except when you jump through a million hoops to make it less so.