Yeah, and no need to define “liberty” either. Liberty can include shackles, what even are words, now shut up
image

( songoftheworms )
[...]

More like, we're passionately telling you that in order for "women" to have liberation, "women" needs to first be defined. And defining women in terms of a discrete biological group is not only more accurate in terms of observable reality and the almighty lived experience, but also in pinpointing the axis by which our subjugation is enacted: Sex is why; gender is how. Who benefits by denying sex and embracing gender? Not women.

How often do you hear a newly minted "trans woman" talking about how he's 100% totally a woman in every way [mumble] except for, like, having been sexualised basically from birth, experiencing female puberty, menstruation, pregnancy, sex-based violence, lower lifetime wages... you know, all the insignificant shit that's naturally dwarfed by the fact that he really likes the colour pink? Who benefits from the view of "women" as artifice, frivolity and aesthetic, rather than the female mammals we very simply are? Not women.

Better to acknowledge the primacy of our biology than our embrace or rejection of odious misogynist stereotypes, I think, given that we aren't oppressed for being innately or irrepressibly "feminine," but for being quite inescapably (yes, even if we cut off our tits and root out our reproductive organs and change our name to Chad - especially then) female. Or is MacKinnon suggesting that identifying out of being oppressed is women's best hope for "producing liberation"?

( Ava )
She's literally acknowledging that the oppressors define women as a discrete biological group. Doesn't she think it's important to have a word for the group that's being oppressed? 🤨

And then her completely misrepresenting that Simone de Beauvoir quote is the cherry on top. Simone de Beauvoir was describing female socialization, which only happens...to females.