Perfect.

So, this one will never die, so one more time for the people at the back:

Sex is reproductive capacity. Or rather, to be more specific, it is having the reproductive anatomy (*form*) that evolved to perform a particular *function.*

It is important to understand that the being

or nature of all things can be understood through this relation between *form* and *function*.

Things are either designed, or evolved, to be able to perform particular functions, and that in order to perform particular functions, they have to have particular forms.

The important thing is the function, which then results in particular forms.

For example:

A mug is fundamentally, 'a vessel for holding hot liquid so it can be drunk.'

This then means that:

1. It has to have a hole to hold liquid.
2. It has to be made of material that has

the properties of being able to hold *hot* liquid. (So for eg you can only make it of glass if it's the type treated to not shatter - which is the main differentiator of what we call 'cups/mug' and what we call 'glasses.')
3. It needs to be of a size to be held in human hands

4. It needs something which means you don't burn your hands when it's hot -> 'a handle'.

The form of the cup then follows from its function. And it was designed, by humans, to fulfil that function.

Reproductive biology was not 'designed' but evolved, to fulfil a function.

When we recognise an object, we recognise it as 'an object which has a particular form that fulfils a function.'

We usually just recognise the form, but implicit in that, is an understanding of the function that form fulfils.

This sounds complicated, but in day-to-day life, we

do this all the time.

We understand perfectly, for instance, that a clock is a time-telling device. And we also understand that if a clock stops working, it does not stop being a clock and turn into, um, a packet of Jaffa Cakes, or any other object that does not tell the time.

The very possibility of the concept of 'a stopped clock' depends on us grasping that an object with the form of a clock is designed to have a time-telling function. And if it's not performing that function, it's 'a thing with the form to perform a function that is not working.'

Someone brought this up with @mrjamesob on the radio a while back. And his response was that this was all too complicated and didn't work for him.

As I said, it sounds complicated when you break it down and explain it, but we all use these ideas with unconscious facility in the

real world.

A family with a daughter who doesn't start menstruating by her late teens will, if they are being responsible, suggest she goes to the doctor.

Because they understand that 'people with the reproductive anatomy of a certain form have evolved to perform a certain set

of functions, and if the sign that they are naturally performing that function doesn't show up, something might be wrong.'

To return to where we started, the very concept of 'an infertile woman' *depends* on us having an understanding of the specific reproductive capacities of

female people *as a class.*

Infertile women still have the reproductive anatomy evolved to fulfil that function. They are, therefore, unequivocally, female. Just as pre-fertile and post-fertile women are unequivocally female.

And actually, everyone understands this perfectly

well as they go about their lives. It's only when it comes to the vexed political question of 'what a woman is' that suddenly everyone pretends it is unfathomably complex.

And that's for entirely political reasons.

Extra note: At this stage, people often jump in and say

something like 'you're saying that infertile women are broken.' This is entirely inflammatory language designed to make it sound like the point being made is beyond the moral pale.

But I would suggest here that it helps no one, and in fact, erases and disrespects the profound

pain of many infertile women (or infertile people of either sex) to pretend that they don't experience the effects of 'not being able to perform a function their reproductive anatomy gave them an expectation of performing.'

It's not adult to confront reality, and the challenges

and blows it sometimes deals people, by playing make believe.

And it's not adult either, to try and deal with the pain of gender dysphoria, by playing make believe.

Sex exists. The femaleness of female people is a *matter* of their reproductive anatomy. But women are human, and

this is not to *reduce* their humanity to their reproductive biology.

Ergo: Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.

Not 'the radical notion that for women to be people we must pretend they're not female.' https://janeclarejones.com/2019/09/01/the-radical-notion-that-women-are-people/

@threadreaderapp unroll please