Lesbianism by numbers, courtesy of the Men’s Rights subreddit. Plus kitties.

@bagelsan, I know you addressed your question to ozy, and I answer with my own opinions and not hirs, but I’ll give my response to that

I’m actually curious, do you agree with the idea of gender and sex being separate at all?

No. We assign sex based on gendered notions and assign gender expectations based on those. It is a form of circular definition (seriously, look at how websters defines gender http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender) and the two cannot therefore be extricated from each other. “Male” and “female” are especially extremely gendered terms. The phrase “female doctor” and “doctor who is a woman” are considered completely interchangeable in English. Even within feminist literature, I have not seen this trend broken, linguistically. Also, the very notion of the need to assign sex and the meanings around it is inherantly related to gender categories.

I don’t like to use other’s oppressions as analogy, so forgive me for this, but are you aware that back in the day when race categories were still on legal documents and Jim Crow was enforced, there were often panics about the race of abandoned children, and some plaintiffs (including the one in Plessey v Ferguson) actually argued that they had been legally classified as the wrong race (the plaintiff in that case was had one black great grandparent and seven white ones, and was declared properly classified as black).

We are taught socially to see these categories which are social ones primarily, but social ones often assigned based on some features of human diversity which are imbued with social meanings (like pigment levels, hair type, genitals, chromosomes, etc.) as somehow being biological reality and “nature”. All of these traits, in body, identity, and behavior, that we say should match up into two neat little binaries do not. The way we discuss “biology” is often extremely clouded by social notions and uses language that is very much wrapped up in those social notions. I want to recommend two pieces on the science of gender that are a bit dated and not on this exact topic, but do explain some of the ground ideas: “The Five Sexes Revisited” but Anne Fausto-Sterling and “The Egg and the Sperm: How Science Has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles” by Emily Martin.

It is rather disingenous to claim that “female” is a word that carries no more meaning than “egg cell carrier” de facto linguistically, and factually incorrect to say that there are two discreet biological categories around hormones, chromosomes, and gametes. Let me ask you this, is a cis woman who has a hysterectomy no longer female? After all, she no longer is an egg cell carrier. What about a cis woman with high testosterone from an ovarian tumor, is she no longer female? What about a cis woman who has XY chromosomes and has low T and a functioning uterus and ovaries? Sex is not a mere descriptive scientific category, it is a social one, created through the lense of social gender notions.

I dunno– queer theory and/or shit I’ve read online seems very taken with the idea that sex can be defined externally while gender is about an internal identity,

This does not match up with my readings in regards to queer theory, esp. ones which had trans people involved in their creation. Let us not confuse cis hetero (and minority cis lesbian and even less cis bi) “liberal feminist” theory with queer theory.

ecause that seems to break the “words have meanings” rule pretty hard

Words do have meanings, yes, but the meanings of these words are derived from and defined by social discourse. Language is in no way immune from social dynamics, in fact, quite the opposite.

Yes, he thinks posting his picture to us will bolster his arguments. He’s overwhelmingly average.

How is it a gendered insult?

Douchebags are unnecessary and unhealthy tools of the patriarchy. I have no qualms in describing some people as unnecessary and unhealthy tools of the patriarchy.

Huh. I remain baffled as to why the picture would be relevant information.

I dunno, the whole thing hinged on stupid stereotypes, I think.

Oh, you’re back. And you still haven’t responded to any points, Factfinder. I’d ask why that was, but I think we know the answer.

But no, go ahead, explain your statement. I could use the entertainment. In fact, I do in fact have popcorn made for this!

Actually the popcorn was made for myself as a regular snack, but I do have it ready nonetheless!

Bitches are unnecessary and unhealthy tools of the gynarchy. I have no qualms in describing some people as unnecessary and unhealthy tools of the gynarchy.

I thought this’d be your fallback.

Putting aside the obvious point that women can not remotely be said to run society, so one can not meaningfully say that we live in a matriarchy (You ignorant buffoon, if you are going to try to mock someone by using their own words, do so correctly), bitch specifically refers to female dogs, and imputes something of both women and canines. The word is used to refer to women, or men who behave like women. Douchebag is one of the many insults employed to refer to any jackass.

I mean that douches make vaginas smell all floral and shit, even though vaginas are supposed to smell like vagina. And they cause yeast infections. And they are only sold because the patriarchy makes people feel insecure about their vaginas because they don’t smell like fucking meadows.

Female dogs, on the other hand, are perfectly lovely creatures and neither unhealthy, unnecessary nor tools of the gynarchy.

Bitches are unnecessary and unhealthy tools of the gynarchy.

My dog is actually quite healthy, thank you. And I find her highly necessary to important causes like vastly increasing the amount of cute fuzzy awesomeness in my life.

I’m always really amused when dimwits on the internet play this little “I know you are but what am I?” game where they think you can just turn any statement around with complete disregard for what the words actually mean. Douches can be said to be unhealthy because they are bad for the health of people who use them. Why are female dogs unhealthy? Douches can be said to be unnecessary because they do not fulfill any required function? Why are female dogs unnecessary? Douches can be said to be tools of the patriarchy because they are a product whose fundamental marketing message is that having a vagina is a shameful thing that needs to be concealed by making it smell less vagina-like. How on earth can female dogs be said to be a tool of the “gynarchy”?

Words: they fucking mean things! Who knew?

And they are only sold because the patriarchy makes people feel insecure about their vaginas because they don’t smell like fucking meadows.

They might if there’s been enough fucking in the meadow.

Notice how fast FactFinder has moved from finding (well, making up) facts to complaining about what we say and how we treat him? It’s almost as if he, like many of our other trolls, doesn’t actually care what’s true or not, only how people on the internet treat him.

Huh. Totally average, slightly nerdy, appears to be balding a little prematurely. How are pictures of him supposed to prove that he’s right about anything, exactly?