Seriously, is nobody concerned that the head of the EHRC is a creationist?
It's the 21st Century - how can you be in charge of a non-governmental body and believe that human bodies were 'designed', for sex or anything else?!?
#ehrc #transphobia #Falkner #equalities #whatisawoman #queerphobia #evolution #science #creationism #flatearth
@wabiwalden and... you're mistaken. You need to learn not to trust your assumptions so much.
Bodies might look, to you, like they're designed, but they aren't. Genitals aren't 'for' reproduction, and evolution doesn't care what people do with them.
And yes, assuming a teleology to how humans happen to grow IS to ascribe a religious / creationist design, which I'm afraid is incorrect.
@wabiwalden @benross You're arguing past the point I think. The reason the quoted text is transphobic is because 'man = person whose body is designed to do X' excludes trans men from the definition of man, and ditto for trans women.
Cis people's bodies may well 'be designed' for certain purposes (through evolution or what have you), but conceding that point or not doesn't undo the transphobia of the quoted text. Trans men are men, trans women are women, etc etc etc. Defining trans people out of their identified categories _is_ transphobia.
(Never mind that some cis people's bodies cannot perform the 'designed' specifications, but soit.)
@carmenbianca @wabiwalden I appreciate we're all furiously arguing / discussing from a point of agreement, that the #EHRC and its chair are transphobic and that's a big problem.
I also happen to think it's a problem that the chair of the EHRC is a creationist, and if she really believes what she's said then that's certainly the case. #Evolution *does not* 'design' anything for any 'purpose'. That's #IntelligentDesign, which is a cover for #Creationism.
@benross @wabiwalden I don't attach a lot of weight to the word 'design' here. One could reasonably argue that 'the shape of a bird's wings facilitates flight'. To then say that 'birds' wings are designed to facilitate flight' doesn't seem outlandish to me, even in the absence of a creator. For me it's just semantics. It's probably semantically wrong, but to convey the same idea elsewise is a little convoluted. Something like 'birds' wings were shaped by natural selection to facilitate flight' or what not.
In any case I could go both ways on the above. It's the transphobia I can't go both ways on.
Good luck on #TERF island :/
@carmenbianca @wabiwalden Again: asserting genitals are 'for' reproduction is to take a Judeo-Christian, religiously-motivated, creationist attitude. It seems to me not just transphobic, but homophobic and ableist too.
As a gay man, I am not 'using my genitals for something other than their purpose' (procreation), and I'm not using some Cheat-Code, as a bi-product of this purpose is pleasure. I'm using my genitals exactly correctly, as are infertile people or those who just don't want babies.
@benross @wabiwalden I agree. I really don't want to argue semantics here—the world is meaningless and it is we that ascribe meaning to the world.
But I just don't see the word 'design' as short-hand for 'it happened because this trait was naturally selected for by a cold and uncaring physical reality' as especially harmful when in good company. Rephrase that sentence to be the most charitable version of itself; I don't get into conversations about evolution very often.
The process of evolution altered the shape of birds' wings that in turn allowed for better flight. There is _some_ causality there, even if there is no design or purpose or meaning or what have you. But human language wasn't designed to talk about these things from this perspective of agentless physical reality, and I find myself struggling over my words to phrase it from that perspective.
Do you have a good alternative short-hand?
@carmenbianca @wabiwalden I think the important part about this is that evolution works in the exact opposite direction to design.
Evolution means that particular individuals propagate their genes forwards, and some of those genes will be inherited by their progeny.
Design / creation traces backwards from you or me, to a creator, who intended us to be, in some way.
The best we can say under evolution is that I exist because of some facts about my ancestors, not due to any trait of *mine*.
Ben Ross
wabiwalden
Carmen Bianca BAKKER