Misappropriating Section 28 for trans kids is a total insult.
"People are saying these kids are gay (not trans), in order to deny the existence of trans children". Erm, yes, we are saying that.
"People are saying that promoting a trans lifestyle "will encourage kids to be trans". Erm, yes, we are saying that.
"Children should not be ashamed to be who they really are".... says the toy shamer. We ACTUALLY believe that, we didn't call the doctor when the kid played with the "wrong" toys.
Coming out to their parents, leaving home, scooped up by Mermaids and further talked into their transness, rather than helped to love their body and work things out with their parents.
Love and acceptance... I just can't! Your kid was sad because you took away all his favourite things and fought about his healthy expression of boyhood :( :( :(
It's funny, if you accept the premise of all this shit, it all sounds plausible, if you reject the nonsense straight off the bat, it all sounds completely mad.
She's literally saying there's a cohort of children who are born in the wrong bodies and they all happen to love mermaids. What a coincidence, or should I say CONincidence!
So many "gems" in there. The bubbling sounds? A very nice touch!
Here's 10 minutes of hell.... a renowned primatologist talking about gender identity and trans kids.... It was radio 4 a couple of days ago. I'm sure that people listened and now think there is special trans science.
sure! I’m making stickers for now but I could be convinced to make other stuff. I have been printing everything in my house instead of sending it off to one of those companies. cuz I don’t want to deal with the hassle of building a webshop and having it deleted two days later. So right now I am just printing stickers, but I am thinking of upgrading my printing equipment to offer more stuff.
I’m currently selling stickers and zines, you can find them thru my social media profiles, twitter, instagram. email me if it’s confusing realitygirlzine@gmail.com I don’t have a proper website at the moment
E. J. Rosetta's list of non-excuses that 'trans' people have had to conjure up to explain their labelling of JKR as 'transphobic' is so so familiar. What peaked me exactly was JKR's measured, beautifully written essay outlining her concerns for the loss of women's sex-based rights. Well! The over-the-top reaction from 'trans' people and their 'allies' peaked the crap out of me. Especially, when I read one of them almost forbidding anyone from reading the essay. 'Please please don't read this -- it's too triggering and will make you feel 'unsafe' at best, and 'suicidal' at worst. I've read it for you, and I can assure you it's 'transphobic'.' I remember the moment I was reading this particular reaction tweet and saw so many twitter followers step into line. I knew then that the jig was up. Completely closed minds. Cult-like admonitions not to take any countervailing information on board. It was chilling. It still is.
I've recently realised the reaction to JKR's essay was so vicious was *because* it was so measured and reasonable, rather than despite it. More persuasive, therefore more of a "threat" if your whole identity is based on delusion. More triggering and enraging.
This is the article that made me realise how insecure trans ideology makes its adherents feel:
Exactly, I agree. Her measure and reason and compassion are, and were, so so powerful. The cultists saw (perhaps unconsciously for some of them) her essay for what it was -- a true takedown of 'genderism'. They sensed her immense ethical power (she created Dumbledore for god's sakes) and were deeply afraid. Like Orcs afraid of daylight, they mewed and howled at the sun.
If I had an entire worldview that would completely collapse without the repeated 'affirmation' of obvious lies by everybody I ever interacted with, I'd be pretty damn insecure myself.
'Please please don't read this -- it's too triggering and will make you feel 'unsafe' at best, and 'suicidal' at worst. I've read it for you, and I can assure you it's 'transphobic'.'
Yep. The moment I read anything like that I immediately get suspicious and know I should read it and decide for myself.
And still the BBC gets it wrong. Brain of Britain was won by a trans-identified man. There are no subsets of women regardless of what the wokerati think.
Was it? Haven't you got that wrong? I thought the one who identifies as a woman came third in the final of Brain of Britain. The three other finalists were women.
People are twisting facts a lot on threads with great conviction and it's pissing me off.
Starmer says Labour would act to protect girls and women? No they won't. Labour councils are at the heart of the problem of why young girls are not being protected from grooming gangs. Gang members were and probably still are members of Labour. Oldham councillors caused people protesting about the council's failure to be arrested at a meeting, what have they got to hide? Labour are utterly useless. Starmer is virtue signalling to try to get votes. That man makes me utterly sick.
It's his fault that the Pakistani gangs spread everywhere, because he failed when head of the CPS to prosecute the Rochdale gang members even though there was ample evidence.
Sorry about the rant but Starmer's hypocrisy makes me see red when he virtue signals and meanwhile very young girls are gang raped day after day.
Usually the head of an organisation is accountable for its actions and inactions. Like a captain going down with his ship. Starmer meanwhile has no involvement in cps failures with grooming gangs or Jimmy savile.
Starmer wasn't head of the CPS when it failed to prosecute the groomer gangs, but he was when the case review lawyer handled the case against Savile.
Alison Levitt QC investigated the CPS failure to charge Savile, and was "driven to conclude that had the police and prosecutors taken a different approach a prosecution might have been possible.”
Paul Sinha made a dig about you, Graham, during his stand up about 2 years ago. I went up to him at the end to express my disappointment but he pointedly ignored me, arrogant prick!
He once encouraged someone to get obscenely drunk and attack me. He was incredibly rude and sneered at me for a few hours, trying to get a laugh being a misogynist git and attempted to flirt with who he assumed was my partner in front of me. He is foul.
It was. But then I put it away as just another thing I have experienced. Whenever I see his name I am reminded of that night. He was so smug and seemed to view himself as the most witty and intelligent and would stoke things to get a laugh even if that meant picking on someone. It was like a nasty teenage boy who'd spent years perfecting that arrogance. Sometimes the particular schools (often fee-paying) or unis these men went to encouraged that. Then when they meet it's all slaps on the backs and looking down on the little people. He viewed his gayness as something that meant he could bitch and whine about women in a really unsettling way.
I used to know people in the comedy and stand up circuit. There was a big thing a few years back that really erupted with what male comics were up to. The amount of 'but it's funny' I heard from some very unpleasant men and often it was mocking women. I will laugh at some close to the bone things, and importantly when they are funny, but then some carry that on in real life, these 'jokes' sit on some foul views and they really are that sneery and cruel. And their views on women would turn your hair blue (or pink). Oh hang on, maybe that's how...
Listening to Radio 2 in car yesterday morning. News featured a piece about acting awards - recall non binary actors think they are being slurred by male and female categories. They could turn any award down?
The BBC is utterly hopeless - as this is a belief system should they not have quoted someone else (eg Graham) to demonstrate their impartiality as journalists paid by us?
The PhD shrink who diagnosed Neddy (1 appt) said it was my refusal to stay in the marriage that "forced 'her' to decide to live 'full-time' as a female" sworn affidavit submitted to Kings County Court Bkln NY 1996
The PhD psychologist "sexologist" who diagnosed him, according to another paragraph in the sworn affidavit submitted during the custody case, in the first appointment, claimed that. He did too, in another affidavit. He's a man, the father of our sons, and I do not give him the benefit of s/he ever. Not since obtaining the proof that he engaged in fraud in court twice to get out of paying child support, all the while on his way to the executive suite, where he's now Chief Operating Officer of a profitable tech firm.
Sinha's tweet is apparently from "an account that no longer exists". Nice to see a fella with the courage of his convictions ...
Though that tweet about one "Dr. Hartland" claiming that "sex is socially contrived" highlights the ongoing battle over how to define sex. Y'all may have seen the case of physicist Sean Carroll -- who should stick to physics -- painting himself into a corner by arguing in favour of sex as a spectrum:
Though "biologist" Colin Wright is peddling the same sort of anti-scientific schlock by insisting "sex is immutable" (it ain't -- see clownfish for starters). Wright tried to walk that back on his own Substack, but, by the standard biological definitions, many other species -- including the human one -- have many members who are, in point of fact, sexless:
Whole "debate" over the definitions for sex is riven -- on virtually all sides -- with articles of faith, and of outright dogma and antiscientific claptrap.
But speaking of Twitter itself and ICYMI, seems a general amnesty is afoot in the inner sanctums there:
That isn't the point of the comparison. It's to underline and emphasize the standard biological definitions for the sexes, ones which have been published in various biological journals and in Oxford Dictionaries among other equally credible sources. They state that -- for ALL members of all sexually reproducing species including humans -- to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being sexless -- which includes prepubescent humans:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
But, apart from the prepubescents and related cases, it means that, for example, transwomen who cut their nuts off turn themselves into sexless eunuchs, NOT into females. Seems like a high price to pay to dish with the girls over the latest nail polishes ...
Males who are castrated are, of course, not females. They are, however, still males.
But all of this is not what’s actually being discussed here with self-ID and men claiming to be women just because they want to. We’re talking about human beings and society, not clownfish.
Nope, sorry, that's not how the biological definitions work. They apply equally to all sexually-reproducing (anisogamous) species, including the human one.
No functioning gonads -- for whatever reason, and in any of those species -- no sex, i.e., sexless.
“Female: Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.”
Try some reading comprehension! Note the word “can”.
Under your odd misreading (which is a bit red-flag raising actually…) post menopausal women are no longer female. That’s incredibly misogynistic. Grow up.
Can menopausees produce ova? Nope -- not females; suck it up buttercups. The same way that we're no longer teenagers -- one assumes.
As for "incredibly misogynistic" -- what a flaming joke. "Be kind"? "Invalidating their existence"? Where have we heard that lingo before? 🙄 "male" and "female" aren't any sort of "immutable identities", much less ones based on some "mythic essences". The words are only labels that denote the presence of transitory reproductive abilities.
The biological definitions weren't "designed" to pander to women's vanity or to transwomen's envy. They're "designed" to reflect brute biological facts -- organisms with functional gonads can reproduce, and those without them can't. Which fact has profound and far-reaching consequences.
You might try reading that article, even the abstract of it, in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
"The ancestral divergence and maintenance of gamete sizes subsequently led to many other differences we now observe between the two sexes, sowing the seeds for what we have become."
Nope, sorry, that's not how language works. You have to look at ALL the words in a definition. English grammar and syntax require it.
“Female: Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs..“ The word “that” introduces a clause that modifies the word “sex.”
The sex THAT can bear offspring is the female sex. A human that is OF that particular sex is female, whether she is a baby or is post menopausal.
The definitions do not say, “adult humans who can produce eggs.” The definitions refer to “sex” and “phenotypes.” Your mother, if living, is still a female. Go ahead, ask her if she is a woman or not.
Sure -- but that's because there's ANOTHER sex, the one that produces sperm, i.e., males.
"the sex that can bear offspring ..."
The names for the sexes are just labels for categories and members of them. The categories themselves are just abstractions and can't actually DO anything themselves. We don't get to be members of those categories unless we can actually pay the "membership dues" -- i.e., be able to bear offspring -- is a baby girl capable of that? -- or actually produce, on a regular basis, sperm or ova -- can the prepubescent do that?
Sadly, most people haven't a clue how categories work, about their pitfalls and limitations. My attempt to describe those principles and pitfalls by way of tackling that "age-old question" of "What is a woman?":
"First they came for the trans community .... and then they came for the trans community"?!
Someone should explain to Paul that this "first they came for ... and then they came for ...." morality tale only makes sense if it applies to different communities in a line of succession. Or does he think the trans community is the ONLY community?
Sad to lack any empathy! I'm sure he's got women in his family, he works with women, he doesn't live in a vacuum, no excuse for his misogyny. I don't have any black South Africans in my life, didn't stop me protesting Apartheid for many years!
Important:
A Susie Green interview on a podcast about Mermaids (the mythical creature - seriously) where red flag after red flag comes out of her own mouth.
https://player.fm/series/the-mermaid-podcast/mermaids-uk-embrace-empower-educate
Oh my...
Misappropriating Section 28 for trans kids is a total insult.
"People are saying these kids are gay (not trans), in order to deny the existence of trans children". Erm, yes, we are saying that.
"People are saying that promoting a trans lifestyle "will encourage kids to be trans". Erm, yes, we are saying that.
"Children should not be ashamed to be who they really are".... says the toy shamer. We ACTUALLY believe that, we didn't call the doctor when the kid played with the "wrong" toys.
Coming out to their parents, leaving home, scooped up by Mermaids and further talked into their transness, rather than helped to love their body and work things out with their parents.
Love and acceptance... I just can't! Your kid was sad because you took away all his favourite things and fought about his healthy expression of boyhood :( :( :(
It's funny, if you accept the premise of all this shit, it all sounds plausible, if you reject the nonsense straight off the bat, it all sounds completely mad.
She's literally saying there's a cohort of children who are born in the wrong bodies and they all happen to love mermaids. What a coincidence, or should I say CONincidence!
The knitted mermaids? OMFG! Adorable? What!??
Thank you for listening Kay E. So much Susie Green content out there but this interview is particularly shocking. Perhaps only second to the Ted Talk.
So many "gems" in there. The bubbling sounds? A very nice touch!
Here's 10 minutes of hell.... a renowned primatologist talking about gender identity and trans kids.... It was radio 4 a couple of days ago. I'm sure that people listened and now think there is special trans science.
It's "Inside Science" ("Science Funding", 23.11.22) and the interview with Frans de Waal is at 21:22 https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001fd08
Thanks to Dulle Griet for finding the programme, I couldn't find it.
And how insane was it that Susie Green was being interviewed on a podcast about actual Mermaids!
Bonkers. I loved the joke at the end about how mermaids don't really exist!
Just like trans kids 🤣🤣🤣🤣
You couldn't make it up, she could though! She did!
No surprise to read about Susie's son having a boyfriend (seeing as he's gay).
https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/mum-leeds-transgender-woman-who-inspired-itvs-butterfly-opens-about-daughters-suicide-attempts-after-bullying-237976
Some of that is terrifying. Also, how much coffee has she drunk!
It's Kool-Aid, her own brew 😂
Hey Reality Girl can we get T-shirts and posters of this stuff???
sure! I’m making stickers for now but I could be convinced to make other stuff. I have been printing everything in my house instead of sending it off to one of those companies. cuz I don’t want to deal with the hassle of building a webshop and having it deleted two days later. So right now I am just printing stickers, but I am thinking of upgrading my printing equipment to offer more stuff.
Hey Reality Girl, where can I buy your stuff!?
I’m currently selling stickers and zines, you can find them thru my social media profiles, twitter, instagram. email me if it’s confusing realitygirlzine@gmail.com I don’t have a proper website at the moment
could you make that image a link to my social media maybe? 🙏🏻
Travelling about today but I will. Prod me if I don't!
Also can you drop me a line via one of the substack emails?
E. J. Rosetta's list of non-excuses that 'trans' people have had to conjure up to explain their labelling of JKR as 'transphobic' is so so familiar. What peaked me exactly was JKR's measured, beautifully written essay outlining her concerns for the loss of women's sex-based rights. Well! The over-the-top reaction from 'trans' people and their 'allies' peaked the crap out of me. Especially, when I read one of them almost forbidding anyone from reading the essay. 'Please please don't read this -- it's too triggering and will make you feel 'unsafe' at best, and 'suicidal' at worst. I've read it for you, and I can assure you it's 'transphobic'.' I remember the moment I was reading this particular reaction tweet and saw so many twitter followers step into line. I knew then that the jig was up. Completely closed minds. Cult-like admonitions not to take any countervailing information on board. It was chilling. It still is.
Yes - that peaked me as well.
I've recently realised the reaction to JKR's essay was so vicious was *because* it was so measured and reasonable, rather than despite it. More persuasive, therefore more of a "threat" if your whole identity is based on delusion. More triggering and enraging.
This is the article that made me realise how insecure trans ideology makes its adherents feel:
https://elizamondegreen.substack.com/p/when-did-you-start-to-deprogram
Exactly, I agree. Her measure and reason and compassion are, and were, so so powerful. The cultists saw (perhaps unconsciously for some of them) her essay for what it was -- a true takedown of 'genderism'. They sensed her immense ethical power (she created Dumbledore for god's sakes) and were deeply afraid. Like Orcs afraid of daylight, they mewed and howled at the sun.
"how insecure..."
If I had an entire worldview that would completely collapse without the repeated 'affirmation' of obvious lies by everybody I ever interacted with, I'd be pretty damn insecure myself.
'Please please don't read this -- it's too triggering and will make you feel 'unsafe' at best, and 'suicidal' at worst. I've read it for you, and I can assure you it's 'transphobic'.'
Yep. The moment I read anything like that I immediately get suspicious and know I should read it and decide for myself.
Peak Trans All Star Cards. Brilliant! We need to see the whole pack of 'em.
I'd buy a pack! 😍
I am selling them via my twitter, and instagram, there’s a linktree link to Sticker Club. It’s $10 for three stickers each month.
What's your Twitter handle, please?
And still the BBC gets it wrong. Brain of Britain was won by a trans-identified man. There are no subsets of women regardless of what the wokerati think.
Boycott Primark.
Was it? Haven't you got that wrong? I thought the one who identifies as a woman came third in the final of Brain of Britain. The three other finalists were women.
People are twisting facts a lot on threads with great conviction and it's pissing me off.
Starmer says Labour would act to protect girls and women? No they won't. Labour councils are at the heart of the problem of why young girls are not being protected from grooming gangs. Gang members were and probably still are members of Labour. Oldham councillors caused people protesting about the council's failure to be arrested at a meeting, what have they got to hide? Labour are utterly useless. Starmer is virtue signalling to try to get votes. That man makes me utterly sick.
It's his fault that the Pakistani gangs spread everywhere, because he failed when head of the CPS to prosecute the Rochdale gang members even though there was ample evidence.
Sorry about the rant but Starmer's hypocrisy makes me see red when he virtue signals and meanwhile very young girls are gang raped day after day.
I despise Keith Stalin too, but there's no evidence to support the view that he failed to prosecute the grooming gangs:
https://fullfact.org/online/starmer-muslim-grooming-prosecution-crime/
Usually the head of an organisation is accountable for its actions and inactions. Like a captain going down with his ship. Starmer meanwhile has no involvement in cps failures with grooming gangs or Jimmy savile.
Starmer wasn't head of the CPS when it failed to prosecute the groomer gangs, but he was when the case review lawyer handled the case against Savile.
Alison Levitt QC investigated the CPS failure to charge Savile, and was "driven to conclude that had the police and prosecutors taken a different approach a prosecution might have been possible.”
Here's Fullfact on Starmer and Savile:
https://fullfact.org/online/keir-starmer-prosecute-jimmy-savile/
Primark is crap. Nearly everything shrinks. And now this gender shit.
Boycott.
No it's because you use expressions like "horse crap" when replying to people. Cut it out or comment somewhere else.
Richard Osman just used the phase "if someone is differently gendered"...... they're all at it!
🤣
Why didn't 'Dr' Hartland include anything about the '+' in his piss-poor 'presentation'?
Is he, I wonder, discriminating against paedophiles and bestialitists and all the other wastes of life 'captured' by the '+'?
#ShameOnHim
Paul Sinha made a dig about you, Graham, during his stand up about 2 years ago. I went up to him at the end to express my disappointment but he pointedly ignored me, arrogant prick!
I guess women don’t feature largely in his life, so our well-being doesn’t matter much to him.
He once encouraged someone to get obscenely drunk and attack me. He was incredibly rude and sneered at me for a few hours, trying to get a laugh being a misogynist git and attempted to flirt with who he assumed was my partner in front of me. He is foul.
Good grief. That sounds pretty extreme.
It was. But then I put it away as just another thing I have experienced. Whenever I see his name I am reminded of that night. He was so smug and seemed to view himself as the most witty and intelligent and would stoke things to get a laugh even if that meant picking on someone. It was like a nasty teenage boy who'd spent years perfecting that arrogance. Sometimes the particular schools (often fee-paying) or unis these men went to encouraged that. Then when they meet it's all slaps on the backs and looking down on the little people. He viewed his gayness as something that meant he could bitch and whine about women in a really unsettling way.
I used to know people in the comedy and stand up circuit. There was a big thing a few years back that really erupted with what male comics were up to. The amount of 'but it's funny' I heard from some very unpleasant men and often it was mocking women. I will laugh at some close to the bone things, and importantly when they are funny, but then some carry that on in real life, these 'jokes' sit on some foul views and they really are that sneery and cruel. And their views on women would turn your hair blue (or pink). Oh hang on, maybe that's how...
Interesting. They all claim their stage face is an act.
Listening to Radio 2 in car yesterday morning. News featured a piece about acting awards - recall non binary actors think they are being slurred by male and female categories. They could turn any award down?
The BBC is utterly hopeless - as this is a belief system should they not have quoted someone else (eg Graham) to demonstrate their impartiality as journalists paid by us?
The coverage of this in the MSM is disproportionately large compared to that on SG’s departure from Mermaids. What is going on??
Well, here's a 13 second retort to them all:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbVA1TCIXb8
The PhD shrink who diagnosed Neddy (1 appt) said it was my refusal to stay in the marriage that "forced 'her' to decide to live 'full-time' as a female" sworn affidavit submitted to Kings County Court Bkln NY 1996
S/He blamed you?
The PhD psychologist "sexologist" who diagnosed him, according to another paragraph in the sworn affidavit submitted during the custody case, in the first appointment, claimed that. He did too, in another affidavit. He's a man, the father of our sons, and I do not give him the benefit of s/he ever. Not since obtaining the proof that he engaged in fraud in court twice to get out of paying child support, all the while on his way to the executive suite, where he's now Chief Operating Officer of a profitable tech firm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbVA1TCIXb8
Sinha's tweet is apparently from "an account that no longer exists". Nice to see a fella with the courage of his convictions ...
Though that tweet about one "Dr. Hartland" claiming that "sex is socially contrived" highlights the ongoing battle over how to define sex. Y'all may have seen the case of physicist Sean Carroll -- who should stick to physics -- painting himself into a corner by arguing in favour of sex as a spectrum:
https://nitter.it/seanmcarroll/status/1592168158865281025
Though "biologist" Colin Wright is peddling the same sort of anti-scientific schlock by insisting "sex is immutable" (it ain't -- see clownfish for starters). Wright tried to walk that back on his own Substack, but, by the standard biological definitions, many other species -- including the human one -- have many members who are, in point of fact, sexless:
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/weekly-recap-66a/comment/10591965
Whole "debate" over the definitions for sex is riven -- on virtually all sides -- with articles of faith, and of outright dogma and antiscientific claptrap.
But speaking of Twitter itself and ICYMI, seems a general amnesty is afoot in the inner sanctums there:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1595869526469533701
Oh do tell us more about the relevance of clownfish 🤡
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rV-Exeal17s
So what if humans aren't clownfish?
That isn't the point of the comparison. It's to underline and emphasize the standard biological definitions for the sexes, ones which have been published in various biological journals and in Oxford Dictionaries among other equally credible sources. They state that -- for ALL members of all sexually reproducing species including humans -- to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being sexless -- which includes prepubescent humans:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
https://web.archive.org/web/20181020204521/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/female
https://web.archive.org/web/20190608135422/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male
Humans won't ever change sex because they can't change their gonads -- a point which biologist Colin Wright himself once emphasized:
https://nitter.it/SwipeWright/status/1240781010800979968#m
But, apart from the prepubescents and related cases, it means that, for example, transwomen who cut their nuts off turn themselves into sexless eunuchs, NOT into females. Seems like a high price to pay to dish with the girls over the latest nail polishes ...
Males who are castrated are, of course, not females. They are, however, still males.
But all of this is not what’s actually being discussed here with self-ID and men claiming to be women just because they want to. We’re talking about human beings and society, not clownfish.
Nope, sorry, that's not how the biological definitions work. They apply equally to all sexually-reproducing (anisogamous) species, including the human one.
No functioning gonads -- for whatever reason, and in any of those species -- no sex, i.e., sexless.
So tiresome.
“Female: Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.”
Try some reading comprehension! Note the word “can”.
Under your odd misreading (which is a bit red-flag raising actually…) post menopausal women are no longer female. That’s incredibly misogynistic. Grow up.
Can menopausees produce ova? Nope -- not females; suck it up buttercups. The same way that we're no longer teenagers -- one assumes.
As for "incredibly misogynistic" -- what a flaming joke. "Be kind"? "Invalidating their existence"? Where have we heard that lingo before? 🙄 "male" and "female" aren't any sort of "immutable identities", much less ones based on some "mythic essences". The words are only labels that denote the presence of transitory reproductive abilities.
The biological definitions weren't "designed" to pander to women's vanity or to transwomen's envy. They're "designed" to reflect brute biological facts -- organisms with functional gonads can reproduce, and those without them can't. Which fact has profound and far-reaching consequences.
You might try reading that article, even the abstract of it, in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
"The ancestral divergence and maintenance of gamete sizes subsequently led to many other differences we now observe between the two sexes, sowing the seeds for what we have become."
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990?login=false
Nope, sorry, that's not how language works. You have to look at ALL the words in a definition. English grammar and syntax require it.
“Female: Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs..“ The word “that” introduces a clause that modifies the word “sex.”
The sex THAT can bear offspring is the female sex. A human that is OF that particular sex is female, whether she is a baby or is post menopausal.
The definitions do not say, “adult humans who can produce eggs.” The definitions refer to “sex” and “phenotypes.” Your mother, if living, is still a female. Go ahead, ask her if she is a woman or not.
"introduces a clause that modifies the word ... "
Sure -- but that's because there's ANOTHER sex, the one that produces sperm, i.e., males.
"the sex that can bear offspring ..."
The names for the sexes are just labels for categories and members of them. The categories themselves are just abstractions and can't actually DO anything themselves. We don't get to be members of those categories unless we can actually pay the "membership dues" -- i.e., be able to bear offspring -- is a baby girl capable of that? -- or actually produce, on a regular basis, sperm or ova -- can the prepubescent do that?
Sadly, most people haven't a clue how categories work, about their pitfalls and limitations. My attempt to describe those principles and pitfalls by way of tackling that "age-old question" of "What is a woman?":
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/what-is-a-woman
"First they came for the trans community .... and then they came for the trans community"?!
Someone should explain to Paul that this "first they came for ... and then they came for ...." morality tale only makes sense if it applies to different communities in a line of succession. Or does he think the trans community is the ONLY community?
Sad to lack any empathy! I'm sure he's got women in his family, he works with women, he doesn't live in a vacuum, no excuse for his misogyny. I don't have any black South Africans in my life, didn't stop me protesting Apartheid for many years!