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”.
TERFS claim to be feminists, but they’re really misogynistic and genital obsessed to the point where they consider women to basically be floating uteruses meant to be spitting out babies. Easily up there with the trad wives.
This “define a woman” thing has been going on for at least a decade and began with TERFs saying that it’s easy to define a woman and exclude trans women from that definition - and then they defined a woman as an adult human capable of giving birth and were promptly informed that they just said that any women with menopause or fertility issues are not women. They’ve been struggling to prove everybody else wrong ever since, and they always come back to the ability to have babies.
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.
TERFS claim to be feminists, but they’re really misogynistic and genital obsessed to the point where they consider women to basically be floating uteruses meant to be spitting out babies. Easily up there with the trad wives.
This “define a woman” thing has been going on for at least a decade and began with TERFs saying that it’s easy to define a woman and exclude trans women from that definition - and then they defined a woman as an adult human capable of giving birth and were promptly informed that they just said that any women with menopause or fertility issues are not women. They’ve been struggling to prove everybody else wrong ever since, and they always come back to the ability to have babies.