Also, women aren’t actually rare, large companies have warehouses full of women to artificially inflate the price
Yeah, it’s a serious problem.
I’m not sure if this is a joke or very poignant social commentary.
It definitely is
I’m as trans-positive as they come, but ‘being able to give birth’ is actually a meaningful difference.
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.
Are you? Sorry, your volunteering of this plus your instance makes me doubt.
It’s certainly not the most important factor, and not relevant for the majority of social interaction, but it is meaningful to a lot of people. Some people want to have kids, and adoption can be a lenghty and costly process. Some people wish they could have kids naturally. Some people are terrified of accidentally producing kids and sometimes take permanent measures to avoid this. I’m in that third camp.
I never ascribed morality or affirmation of gender to it. Just pointing out that calling it meaningless is short-sighted.
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.
did they ask you to hand over your woman card?
Same boat (other aisle) for me! The fact that some people are… pre-disposed to this is–at the very least–meaningful.
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?
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.
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?
The basic attributes of a person are meaningful in myriad ways. In fact, many people would prefer a partner that they may not accidentally procreate with. I mean, if you can avoid taking birth control that’s great. I’ve done this for my partner and it’s been a massive positive in our relationship.
But yeah I get that this is the internet and anything short of enthusiastic praise for trans positivity can be seen as an attack. I mean jesus TERFs are everywhere these days. Probably should have included a blurb in the top comment…
Of course they are. The pain, suffering and slavery is what makes a natural special and desirable.
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.
Fun but a little savage. 😂
Sexy sexy lasers.
And just like with diamonds, there is a lot more blood involved with natural women!
(<3 everyone :3)
I think I might start referring to the patriarchy as “the women mines”
The children yearn for the women mines!
They call it a mine. A mine!
This is no mine, it’s a tomb
They delved too greedily and too deep… You know what they awoke in the darkness…
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.
if mine doesn’t, i don’t want it. interrupted calibrations are sexy
That elf better be over 300 years old.
I wouldn’t know I prefer old and grizzled turians.
