Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

bloodrose wrote

Honestly, the word "female" was not the point of my argument. My argument was that often stuff produced by women is treated as fluff and calling something that discussed the hard work of women as "fluff" was inherently sexist. I used female not because I had carefully chosen my words or because it was a necessary word for my case. It was pointed out to me that the word female is often used to exclude trans women from womanhood. Using it in this manner made people feel that was what I was trying to do and distracted from my point. Therefore, I believed it was a poor word choice.

5

DarkArmillary wrote

u/bloodrose

I am familiar with that argument. What I wish to convey to you is that that argument is based on specious reasoning. Words are "exclusive" by their very nature. The very point of words is to define something specific, rather than something else or everything at the same time. Apologies if you find that obvious or insulting, that's not my intention. I'm just trying to show how that's an empty argument, linguistically.

You may have a different idea of what point was embedded in your argument, but in my interpretation of your comment, the word "female" is very relevant, and is in fact the operative word of your argument.

If you erase "female" from your comment, it reads: "Architects talking about how women interact with their environments = fluff piece. Sexist much?"

As it's phrased now, no it's not sexist. Because the descriptor of "female" is what would have made such a dismissive statement ("fluff piece") sexist in the first place. As it reads now, it's just... what, an anti-architect statement. But the fact that female architects were responsible for city planning is relevant, to the article/video and to such dismissive comments related to it.

Erasing the word "female" changed the entire basis of the argument; just as this broader rhetorical move of erasing "female" from political consideration changes the nature of rights affecting females.

−1

bloodrose wrote (edited )

If you erase "female" from your comment, it reads: "Architects talking about how women interact with their environments = fluff piece. Sexist much?"

As it's phrased now, no it's not sexist. Because the descriptor of "female" is what would have made such a dismissive statement ("fluff piece") sexist in the first place.

Is the fact that being dismissive about a piece about women enough to be considered sexist? I thought using "women architects" sounded too clunky. But I thought it was a valid point that people use "female" to mean "biologically female" to mean "those with a vagina." I did not intend to say "Architects who have vaginas" so I thought removing the word made more sense.

Edit to add: I also was comfortable with changing my framing to make those I was conversing with more comfortable talking with me.

5

DarkArmillary wrote (edited )

I think that being dismissive about stories about women could be, and most likely is, a sexist tendency, sure.

[Edit: it's also possible to be dismissive/critical of stories on the basis of media literacy, and being critical of the implicit ideology put forth in the piece.]

I can see your point about clunky wording, but don't you think the fact that those architects are female, is relevant to their influence on city design? Anyway, I think it is relevant. Not much more to add to that and what I've already said. Have a good one.

−1