And of course she doesn’t, because she can’t. She has a middle-school grasp of the subject, and she’s trying to define “woman” as “woman” by using the weasel word “class”.
I believe a woman is a human being who belongs to the sex class that produces large gametes. It’s irrelevant whether or not her gametes have ever been fertilised, whether or not she’s carried a baby to term, irrelevant if she was born with a rare difference of sexual development that makes neither of the above possible, or if she’s aged beyond being able to produce viable eggs. She is a woman and just as much a woman as the others.
I can only deduce that “sex class” is some kind of group where you produce large gametes, but it doesn’t matter if they’re viable.
I don’t have ovaries, but I had them at some point in my life. I can only surmise I’m not in the “sex class” woman according to Rowling, since I don’t produce large gametes, viable or not.
Yeah, except I’m pretty sure she disagrees. Weird, it’s almost as if any rational definition actually is actually automatically inclusive, except when you jump through a million hoops to make it less so.
I did. She doesn’t define “sex class” anywhere.
And of course she doesn’t, because she can’t. She has a middle-school grasp of the subject, and she’s trying to define “woman” as “woman” by using the weasel word “class”.
I can only deduce that “sex class” is some kind of group where you produce large gametes, but it doesn’t matter if they’re viable.
I don’t have ovaries, but I had them at some point in my life. I can only surmise I’m not in the “sex class” woman according to Rowling, since I don’t produce large gametes, viable or not.
Sounds like being born with a condition that makes your bits not develop the same as your brain would qualify?
Yeah, except I’m pretty sure she disagrees. Weird, it’s almost as if any rational definition actually is actually automatically inclusive, except when you jump through a million hoops to make it less so.
Of course she’ll disagree.