• Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Also, women aren’t actually rare, large companies have warehouses full of women to artificially inflate the price

  • 🔍🦘🛎@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I’m as trans-positive as they come, but ‘being able to give birth’ is actually a meaningful difference.

    • Squirrelanna@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      31 minutes ago

      Is it? Where does being able to give birth matter when it comes to the social construct of a woman? There are men, specifically trans men, who can give birth. Conflating the ability to give birth being inherently a feature of a woman is trans masc erasure.

    • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      Is it? I’m a cis woman who paid good money not to be able to give birth.

      (Edit: technically I can still give birth I guess, just made sure it won’t happen without a lot of pre-work in a lab.

    • BingledBozo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Not all cis women have the ability to give birth tho, and even if they did, not all cis women want to give birth. How is that meaningfully different?

      • 🔍🦘🛎@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        That’s true, but from a categorical standpoint, all trans women are incapable, which, at the very least, is a distiction with non-zero significance.

        • BingledBozo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Even from a categorical standpoint I don’t see how the distinction matters. Like, if the categories were “can give birth” and “can’t/won’t give birth” that’s one thing because the “can’t/won’t” category would include trans and cis women but having the categories be “trans women” and “women who can give birth” feels very gender essentialism to me. By that logic we should also have a separate category for cis women that can’t/won’t give birth but then at that point why even differentiate based on whether they’re trans or cis at all?

  • Gladaed@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    Of course they are. The pain, suffering and slavery is what makes a natural special and desirable.

  • cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Naturally produced women have imperfections and lustre that makes them look much better around my neck.

    Synthetically produced women can be made with a precision that makes them better for industrial applications, like cutting saws and lasers.

  • Angelevo@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    And just like with diamonds, there is a lot more blood involved with natural women!

    (<3 everyone :3)

  • Godort@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I think I might start referring to the patriarchy as “the women mines”

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    When you unintentionally(?) promote sex doll positivity.

    Although to be fair sex dolls can also be synthetic men, turians, elves, etc. as well.

    Also a sex doll won’t tell you they’re busy doing calibrations.