The right shouldn't be dodging that question about "less of a woman":
Yes, women who lose the ability to reproduce become less womanly. Men who lose the ability to reproduce, or even procreate, become less manly.
It's why they cry so much when they lose the ability to procreate and reproduce, a key aspect of their womanhood and manhood has been lost.
This is also why when Sex Communists chemically castrate children, they've lost their ability to be either men or women, and why their lives are so miserable that they kill themselves.
This is also why unmarried eggless women in positions of power start absolutely freaking out at 35 realizing that their fertility and ability to start a family has fallen apart, causing them to externalize their personal problems into a political movement.
And you're right, I was hoping Walsh would have retorted "A woman who can't bear children still has her reproductive organs; she's still categorically a biological female even if she can't produce children."
I presume the heat of the moment gave him a bit of brain fog, but the point extends to a fact he already put forward about the biological differences between men and women. Just because some of those properties that define the sex no longer work (i.e., a man who shoots blanks) doesn't mean they're no longer categorically that sex.
I mean, put your self in his shooes. Imagine having to talk to that thing to explain to it why it's an idiot. In the business, we call that an Automatic Brain Fog Generator.
I think that this argument conflates genetics with reproduction and leaves rational positions vulnerable to strawman arguments.
The ability to reproduce is only a small part of what composes genetic sex, which involves many other immutable physical characteristics outside of genitals.
The right shouldn't be dodging that question about "less of a woman":
Yes, women who lose the ability to reproduce become less womanly. Men who lose the ability to reproduce, or even procreate, become less manly.
It's why they cry so much when they lose the ability to procreate and reproduce, a key aspect of their womanhood and manhood has been lost.
This is also why when Sex Communists chemically castrate children, they've lost their ability to be either men or women, and why their lives are so miserable that they kill themselves.
This is also why unmarried eggless women in positions of power start absolutely freaking out at 35 realizing that their fertility and ability to start a family has fallen apart, causing them to externalize their personal problems into a political movement.
Well said.
And you're right, I was hoping Walsh would have retorted "A woman who can't bear children still has her reproductive organs; she's still categorically a biological female even if she can't produce children."
I presume the heat of the moment gave him a bit of brain fog, but the point extends to a fact he already put forward about the biological differences between men and women. Just because some of those properties that define the sex no longer work (i.e., a man who shoots blanks) doesn't mean they're no longer categorically that sex.
I mean, put your self in his shooes. Imagine having to talk to that thing to explain to it why it's an idiot. In the business, we call that an Automatic Brain Fog Generator.
I think that this argument conflates genetics with reproduction and leaves rational positions vulnerable to strawman arguments.
The ability to reproduce is only a small part of what composes genetic sex, which involves many other immutable physical characteristics outside of genitals.
I agree with that, but we're talking about a woman not just a female. Reproduction and family is part of being a woman in a human social environment.