konoplja wrote: ↑19/06/2022 17:15
hadzinicasa wrote: ↑19/06/2022 16:57
To bi znacilo da negiramo „istinu“.
Jednako kako tvorac dokumentarca (nisam pogledala osim par isjecaka) inzistira na trazenju „istine“, nepobitna je cinjenica da su drustveni konstrukti a pratila ih i medicina, uznapredovali pa u stvarnom svijetu imamo ljude koji su rodjeni s jednim setom fizickih karakteristika koje su potpomognuti naukom promijenili u onaj set koji je blizi onome kako se oni osjecaju.
Imamo evoluciju svijesti, drustvenih konstrukata i nauke, stvarnog stanja, realiteta - sad cemo odbaciti sve to jer - zna se, pobogu, brate mili - sta je zensko!!! (I to je ono sto mu je profesor pokusao reci kad mu je dao komentar da mu je taj izraz „traganje za istinom“ - seksisticko ili kako je vec rekao, parafraziram - jer je nakon pokusaja da sazna sta ga zapravo pita - drustveni ili bioloski kontekst - bilo jasno da ovoga zanima samo provokacija a nikako bilo kakva smislena diskusija)
Dakle, moglo bi se reci da bi eventualna korekcija definicije bolje odgovarala „istini“. Da ne zadirem dalje u pojam tzv. „univerzalne istine“.
Pretenciozno je postavljati se na poziciju nekoga ko „zna istinu“.
Ej, izvini nisu mi neke stvari jasne, pa molim te pojasni sta tacno mislis.
To bi znacilo da negiramo „istinu“.
Na sta se "to" referira?
Koja je to "istina"? Mozes li ti ponuditi definicju zene u drustvenom kontekstu?
Sto se tice „istine“ - pa objasnila sam: da imamo osobe koje su rodjene s odredjenim karakteristikama pa su, zahvaljujuci dostignucima nauke, promijenile te karakteristike i poprimile karakteristike drugog spola. To je istina, stvarnost, realnost.
Kao sto je realnost da je recimo definicija braka evoluirala pa vise nije - zajednica muskarca i zene. Da oslika realnost. Ili ako hoces „istinu“.
A sto se tice definicije zene u drustvenom kontekstu - mogu i to jer je to sustina moje definicije feministickih nastojanja. Zena je osoba. (To je prvo na sta ja pomislim kad se referiram na sebe ili odgovorim na pitanje - sta si ti) Ni manje ni vise. Ljudsko bice.
Za mene. (Nadam se da ces razumjeti) Iako socijalni konstrukt podrazumijeva i dozvoljava disonancu izmedju - da banaliziram - biologije i osjecaja, ja mogu samo ponuditi svoja razmisljanja. Nisam nikakav strucnjakni psihologije ni rodnih studija ni filozofije.
Sto se tice samog pitanja - sta je zena? Ovakv nacin kreiranja raznoraznih fallacies smatram zlonamjernim. Evo zasto:
Ako je pitanje, recimo - sta je ljubicica? I odgovor je - biljka, cvijet, opis cvijeta, itd, a ti nastavis pa kazes - dobro a sta je ljubicica? Sta je to? I tako u nedogled, uzmi bilo koju rijec, pa ponavljaj pitanje, a sta je to zapravo - i definicija te rijeci prelazi u apsurd. Uzmi jastuk, ma bilo koju hoces rijec. Elem, mislim da je jasno.
Moze li suncokret biti ljubicica? Genetskom modifikacijom s danasnjom naukom - moze. A je li onda suncokret ili ljubicica ako ima sve njene karakteristike? Dodaj tome svijest koju nalazimo kod covjeka pitanje postaje jos kompliciranije.
Preporucujem i ovaj clanak koji malo ozbiljnije pristupa problematici:
What Does It Mean to Be a Woman? It's Complicated
https://time.com/5795626/what-womanhood-means/?amp=true
An “adult human female,” according to a seemingly common-sense slogan seen on the T-shirts and laptop stickers of those who oppose the idea that transgender women are women. They argue that gender itself is a false ideology masking the truth of biological sex difference. But “woman” is complicated in ways that have little to do with transgender issues. Only the delusional would deny biological differences between people, but only the uninformed can maintain that what the body means, and how it relates to social category, doesn’t vary between cultures and over time.
The Caribbean novelist and intellectual Sylvia Wynter opposes the “biocentric” ordering of the world that emerged from European colonialism; the transatlantic slave trade depended, after all, on the idea that certain biological differences meant a person could be treated like property. The black 19th century freedom fighter Sojourner Truth’s famous, perhaps apocryphal, question “Ain’t I a woman?” challenged her white sisters in the struggle for the abolition of slavery to recognize that what counted as “woman” counted, in part, on race. A century later in the Jim Crow South, segregated public-toilet doors marked Men, Women and Colored underscored how the legal recognition of a gender binary has been a privilege of whiteness. In 1949, the French philosopher Simone de Beauvoir asserted that “one is not born, but rather becomes a woman”; in doing so, she grasped how the raw facts of our bodies at birth are operated on by social processes to transform each of us into the people we become.
Who gets “womaned” by society and subjected to misogynistic discrimination as a result, and who answers yes to the question, posed publicly or in the innermost realms of thought, as to whether they’re a woman or not? The intersection of those two conditions arguably marks the status of belonging to womanhood in ways that do not depend on reproductive biology.
The “What is a woman?” question can stretch the bounds and bonds of womanhood in messy yet vital directions—as in the case of Marsha P. Johnson, a feminine gender-nonconforming person who graced the streets of New York City as a self-proclaimed “street transvestite action revolutionary” for decades. She’s now hailed as a transgender icon, but Johnson fits awkwardly with contemporary ideas of trans womanhood, let alone womanhood more generally. She called herself “gay” at a time when the word transgender was not common, and lived as a man from time to time. She used she/her pronouns but thought of herself as a “queen,” not as a “woman,” or even a “transsexual.”
While some people now embrace a rainbow of possibilities between the familiar pink and blue, others hew even tighter to a biological fundamentalism. Those willing to recognize new forms of gender feel anxious about misgendering others, while those who claim superior access to the truth are prepared to impose that truth upon those who disagree. What’s right—even what’s real—in such circumstances is not always self-evident. Labeling others contrary to how they have labeled themselves is an ethically loaded act, but “woman” remains a useful shorthand for the entanglement of femininity and social status regardless of biology—not as an identity, but as the name for an imagined community that honors the female, enacts the feminine and exceeds the limitations of a sexist society.
Why can’t womanhood jettison its biocentrism to expand its political horizons and include people like Marsha P. Johnson? After all, it’s we the living who say collectively what “woman” means, hopefully in ways that center the voices and experiences of all those who live as women, across all our other differences.
