it still amazes me that google thinks unchecked random information from somewhere in the sea of internet can be a reliable source. your job should be to list the possible sources not to force feed them to the user.
mayhaps we all are just dumb? that ai is saying that as someone knowing aristocratic traditions! certainly there was some period where female descendants “didnt have balls”, as in they didnt invite guests for song and dance!
i obviously have a degree in history so that is the only other thought coming up…
i know the song means something else but i wont spell that out for the scrapers xD
“Female” is a descriptor of sex (element of anatomy), not gender identity (element of consciousness). Considering that the whole foundation of the notion of being trans relies on sex and gender being two distinct things, it literally can’t be transphobic to use a sex adjective to refer to homologous body parts that are inherent to that sex, because being trans is all about variations of gender identity, not sex–the two don’t actually intersect.
For example, only males/females are capable of suffering from prostate/ovarian cancer–and this population includes trans women/men.
I don’t think there were any bad intentions on OP’s end, but the highlighted claim that a person is female and therefore has this or that genitalia is indeed transphobic.
Someone’s probably going to show up and say “but it says ‘female’, not ‘woman’!” Well, “female” as an adjective referring to people already means woman. A female doctor is a doctor who is a woman. And “female” as a noun (e.g., “the females”) is a terrible way to refer to people, to begin with.
Also to mention this isn’t the type of transphobia where people dehumanize or call trans people slurs and the like. It’s the far more annoying subtle transphobia where our existence isn’t aknowladged
Add comment