do I understand the definition of a woman?

[Vēritās]

This is a great Twitter thread that has been getting the rounds on this subject:

I get the impression that Christians who ask people to name biological differences between men and women think they're doing something really smart, but the reason people won't engage isn't because they've been defeated by facts and logic but because it is absolutely impossible to have a good faith, reasonable conversation with the scale of motivated reasoning that comes from it.

This has always been the problem with natural theology (Barth beat me to it, check it out if you think I'm wrong). The problem isn't that there are no true things we can observe about nature, it's that the process by which we attempt to derive meaning from it is hopelessly subjective.
This starts even at the question "what's a biological difference between men and women?" The very fact that we think that's the important question is motivated.

The list of things males and females have in common in our species is much, much longer than the list of things we don't. Outside of sex organs, things like height, bone density, weight, skull shape, etc are more general trends than hard and fast rules (ie, the average man is taller than the average woman, but women in the upper percentiles are often taller than men in the lower percentiles). As far as species go, we're not even as sexually dimorphous as most birds -my husband and I have roughly the same color head, which is not true of most ducks.

So the idea that the key to our identity is in our differences, not the most longer list of similarities, is already jumping to conclusions. But when this gets even weirder is when people try to argue from it. Sure, I will accept that most women have a wider pelvis than most men. Where I don't want to go with that observation, which a lot of people who insist on asking questions like this do, is that we can clearly see from pelvis trends that women should not own credit cards.

It gets even more obvious when we see how much people even distort "natural" observations to come to conclusions that are personally flattering. For a lot of human history and apparently even today, it's both been true for theologians that women bear children so naturally they should be at home, but also men are the primary agents that produce new life because they produce all the necessary ingredients for creating a baby/are superior to women.

It very obviously can't be both that the thing that makes women subordinate to men is both that they are responsible for childbirth, but the thing that also makes them passive and submissive is the fact that only men can produce the life-force that creates babies. This is a huge part of the history of women in education and medicine. Whatever is unique about women has always been interpreted by men to mean that whatever this new thing we just found about women clearly makes them much worse.

The whole history of hysteria, "wandering womb" theory, women as "wet," women as "receptive" - the thing that drives this kind of thinking is that whatever we learn about women from the natural sciences must meet a foregone, oppressive conclusion: that women can't and shouldn't be educated, that women can't work outside the home, that women can't make decisions, that women should have babies but don't deserve any credit, that women don't have a right to enjoy sex, that women are publicly and sexually available property but at the same time go nuts and accuse men of rape to ruin their lives (even though most rape is not rape and is okay), etc., etc. Because this was always what this thinking was supposed to lead to - not to a celebration of what makes women unique and essential to the flourishing to human society, but how we can prove it's okay to treat them badly.

So if women are hesitant to engage you on the subject of sex differences, I think you should know it's not because we're anticipating you making a brilliant argument.

It's because the fact that you are so interested in biological differences at all puts you in a long line of people who were looking for a reason to oppress someone, and "relative upper body strength" is as good of a reason as any.

Also, if you think I'm exaggerating: Have you ever heard someone use biological differences between sexes to explain why women should hold a position that is well-compensated? What about an appeal to biological differences that places a daily burden on male partners of women?

Have you ever heard PMS brought up in a conversation of gender differences? Was it cited to tell men to pick up more household work and carry an emotional load if their wives were in pain?

No, of course it wasn’t. It was brought up to say that women are weaker and more emotional and that’s why they don’t make decisions.
As someone else pointed out: women are fertile two days a month. Men are fertile every day. Ever heard someone argue that men need to take charge of family planning or that they are responsible for most unwanted pregnancies and need to control themselves?

No, of course not. It shows that men’s desires are extremely strong and need to be catered to.

It’s just really telling that every time biological sex differences come out it’s always bad news for women and good news for men. And pardon me if that doesn’t look like “just science” or “just biology” to me.

-Objections I am anticipating:

“Men do really dangerous work like lumber jacking and oil drilling, so clearly they take on dangerous and unusually male centered obligations.”
Great point. Let me know the next time a lumberjack is making the acquisitions for a major Christian publisher. If your job is “blogger” or “pastor” or “seminary professor,” though, the valor of oil drilling isn’t really yours to claim.

Second objection I am anticipating: “men are called to the self sacrificing, martyrological place of dying for their wives to protect them.”
Woah, sounds serious. Let’s run the numbers, though. In the last five years, how many times has your wife:

1) been pregnant?
2) had a baby by vaginal or C section?
3) changed a diaper?
4) done your laundry?
5) been alone while you were traveling for pleasure?
6) been alone while you were making social calls?
7) made your dinner?
8) allowed you to make a major purchase without input?

In the last five years, how many times have you jumped in front of an oncoming bullet for your wife?

If the answer is zero, please consult the above list, and how often you have done these things, to see if this is a fair trade. You’ll never take a bullet for your wife, so let it go.

If you don’t want to do housework to lighten your wife’s load, you don’t have the character to take a bullet.

If you think she’s obligated to do what you say sexually, you’re probably gonna be the one to shoot her.

Another example:
Have you ever heard a man say that women today need to be more feminine?

Did he mean that they need to have more cellulite and body fat?

No, of course he didn’t. He meant they were supposed to grow their hair out, do what men say, have babies, wear dresses, and do things he thinks are hot. Biologically, women have more ab fat and cellulite than men. You think Denny Burk and Michael Foster and the rest of the Biblical Womanhood crowd has taken that on board in their theology?

Have they ever said that we need to be accepting of more body types?

Hell no, they don’t want women to look like women, they want women to look like women in porn, specifically. Is that natural? Nope! Is it bad for women and good for men? Yep! So it’s natural now.

That’s the standard. It’s never actually about what is natural. It’s always about the guy who says what is natural divesting responsibility, gaining privileges, and putting people beneath him. Every time.

https://Twitter.com/LauraRbnsn/status/1 ... 2309285889

[Res Ipsa]

That’s a helluva post.

[doubtingthomas]

We both agree, at least I think we do, that identification is most often critical to a person affected with DSD…they can either identify as a man or a woman…or a ever growing gender rainbow. But again, this does not detour us from being able to define what a biological woman is, in fact I could argue that the growing science makes it easier.

Really? Explain Swyer syndrome then.

Swyer syndrome is also called 46,XY complete gonadal dysgenesis; the medical term “dysgenesis” means "abnormal development." Because they appear female on the outside, babies with Swyer syndrome are usually raised as girls and develop a female gender identity, which is a person's sense of their gender (girl, boy, a combination, or neither). Swyer syndrome may be identified before birth, at birth, or later when a child does not go through puberty as usual. Because they do not have functional ovaries that produce hormones, affected individuals often begin hormone replacement therapy during early adolescence to start puberty, causing the breasts and uterus to grow, and eventually leading to menstruation. Hormone replacement therapy is also important for bone health and helps reduce the risk of low bone density (osteopenia) and fragile bones (osteoporosis). Women with Swyer syndrome do not produce eggs (ova), but if they have a uterus, they may be able to become pregnant with a donated egg or embryo.

https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condit ... -syndrome/


Why can a person with XY chromosomes become pregnant? Would you say that men can become pregnant?

[doubtingthomas]

Part I've bolded.

I think Markk blocked me. Please share the above information with him that I provided. I can imagine his face when he reads it.

Remember how he insisted that XY is always male and XX is always female?

[Imwashingmypirate]

Mormons believe Joe Smith was a great man, so their judgment is clearly suspect. Their assessment of gender can be summarily dismissed.

When I was a fully active Mormons, I once said Joseph smith wasn't that righteous in YSA Sunday school. I got pulled into the bishops office and he wasn't impressed. He accused me of damaging other people's testimonies.

I think there is probably more questioning should than credit is given for in the above statement but that they might be judged for it and even disciplined.