[Fwd: Re: ignore this, it's about women and sexism ...]

Katha Pollitt kpollitt at thenation.com
Thu Nov 25 06:59:50 PST 1999


kelley wrote:
>
> >I do reckon someone who's giving birth or menstruating is not a man.
>
> i'm not giving birth or menstruating right now, does that make me a man?
> was i a man before menses? was i a man before i gave birth to the most
> wonderful sonshine on the planet?
>
> or, is it that, by virtue of doing something another member of the species
> homo sapiens doesn't do, then i am marked "not a man". [you remind me of
> aristotle!]

Kelley, these are debater's tricks, IMHO. Daniel (?) is trying to say that ONLY women menstruate and give birth. He is not saying that one is only a woman when in the very act of doing these things. Similarly, he is not defining "woman " as "not man." he could just as well have written "I do reckon that someone who makes and ejaculates spermatic fluid and impregnates another is not a woman." That would not mean one is only a man while performing this act, or that sterile impotent men are women.

Do you favor medical research that requires women ("women") to be included as test subjects? That looks into sex differences in responses to treatment for heart disease, stroke, cancer, AIDS, other diseases? If so, how do YOU propose to decide who those "women" are who should be used as research subjects? If a "man" adopts female gender behavior are you willing to accept a course of treatment based on his response to a new medication?

Katha

ps.What makes your son your son and not your daughter?



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list