@RenNotFun@moonlightbap@aletheia327 For all intents and purposes, it is "real" just as it is for every other animal that can reproduce without having to discourse about it
@moonlightbap@entropyoccult@aletheia327 Once again, sex is not a prediscursive truth about someone's body. Sex is not a real, underlying category of bodies we are simply identifying. Sex is a category we construct for the purpose of enforcing patriarchal oppression. It isn't real.
sorry I've neglected to check my inbox but thanks to whoever this was! I appreciate you a whole bunch 🫶
send love/hate/ambivalence here -> https://t.co/4XZFFQYm2o
@RenNotFun@moonlightbap@aletheia327 Along with secondary sex characteristics, that's how it's worked for millennia. Why should we be in denial of this, how would it change the dynamic between sexes
@RenNotFun@aletheia327 They are useful for the vast majority... Why else would every language distinguish between man and woman... How is acknowledging this patriarchy? Unless you think sexual reproduction itself is patriarchal in which case it's inescapable
@d8ynch@aletheia327 That is possible but isn't conducive to close-knit, orderly support system. There is evidence that hunter-gatherers would support a member of their group even if they had broken bones or were blind. They held and maintained strong bonds with each other.
@d8ynch@aletheia327 So you imagine our ancestors as the stereotypical, savage, club-wielders in animal skin togas?
I am inclined to believe they were a bit more complicated socially and could punish poor behaviour as a collective, as cooperation was key to our survival.