I didn’t know it was possible for everyone to simply intend for their body to engage or not engage in such a bodily function. Interesting. /s
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.
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”.
It really gets worse the more you think about it.
What did she mean?
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.”
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?”
Born with the intention of holding eggs? Do they not know what the word intention means?
$20 says it implies “intended by god”.
These asshats tend to try and hide their religious bias, but it comes out like this every now and then, and they often don’t realize.
If god intended for women to hold eggs, but many don’t have the capability, did he fuck up?
honestly the idea of god being real but just… kinda not being very good at what he does… almost makes more sense than either him being real and perfect or not existing at all
like up until the abrahamic religions got it in their heads that god is perfect, it was quite standard for religions to 1) see their gods as imperfect and probably kind of being mercurial assholes who you moreso try to appease than worship, and 2) not be overly worried with the existence of other religions and whether their theologies are compatible
This knocks loose a memory for me. The instructor for the anthropology class that I took in college introduced the idea of natural categories versus cultural categories, and the example that he used was the category of things called “chair.” It’s a cultural category, which is defined as things that humans assign to the category somewhat arbitrarily.
A chair might be something for a human to sit on, like a wooden platform on four legs, with a vertical back for lumbar support. It may have armrests (“arms”) or not. If it doesn’t have a back, it’s a stool. But stools can also have backs, like some barstools, if they have longer legs. But a director’s chair has long legs, and a back, and is not a stool?! And then what of a papasan chair, with no legs, with the seat and backrest combined into one, curved platform?
If you sit on a stump around a campfire, that’s kind of an improvised chair, defined more by the use than the shape. Then, put a collection of stumps around a table in a cabincore dining room, and now they are formally chairs.
In the other direction, the student union at my university is well-known for its colorful terrace chairs with a sunburst pattern on the back. It has a couple of 10-foot-tall versions for people to climb on (at their own risk!) for social media photo ops. Those are chairs, because of the shape, although they’re not for a human to sit on.
And then let’s not even get into lounge chairs, upon which you can be fully recumbent instead of sitting… Point is “biological female” is a natural category (sexually-reproducing organism bearing the larger of its species’ gametes). It includes lizards and ferns, but not all of what we call women, because women is a cultural category. It’s kind of arbitrary.
And yeah, intelligent people know this, and the “adult biological female” people are just trying to hide their bigotry. I just like to think out loud about it.
TIL the creator of Father Ted is a bigot. Fuckin bummer. Why can’t these assholes keep their shitty opinions to themselves?
He wrote an otherwise funny episode of the IT crowd, but the B plot involved violence against a trans woman. When he was criticized for it, the universe presented him with a choice:
- reflect on one cheap joke, or
- make it his whole identity
this ties into a claim ContraPoints makes about the reasons people become conspiracy theorists, around 2 hours 26 minutes into her CONSPIRACY video she talks about “revenged humiliation” as a psychological reason - basically there are a lot of instances of people who became conspiracy theorists after an instance of intense public humiliation (she cites the guy who came up with the “space reptilians run the government”, Naomi Wolf the ex-feminist turned Steve Bannon co-host and anti-vaxxer, and Candace Owens the ex-anti-racist activist turned famed conservative and alt-right activist.
Just interesting to see another clear example out in the wild.
I suspect it’s possible JK Rowling’s descent into her anti-trans obsession arguably was fueled by humiliation (the first time she got flak was in 2018 when she liked a transphobic tweet which she claims the like was a mistake, a slip of the finger when she was trying to screenshot the tweet for later; she wrote and published her essay defending her transphobia a few days after Daniel Radcliffe publicly decried JK’s transphobia and affirmed trans identity in June 2020).
I just intentionally ate 2 more eggs then normal today. What’s going to happen to me?!1 am i going to get gregnat
Huh, then menopause it’s the moment when a cis woman turns into a cis man? No wonder they are super upset about the whole thing. The more you know, the full cycle of manhood is more complex than you know.
