Yes, and mine is that such a person is not my mother. The words used by the person I was responding to and the notion I am challenging that motherhood is biologically linked.
I am not “attacking” cis women at all, I am attacking ideas about what biology means in relation to womanhood.
I never claimed dna being passed down was TERF, I used that word in response to your bioessentialiasm and socialisation language when I responded to your comment.
To this users comment I was talking about what motherhood is, and that is not defined by one’s mitochondrial DNA. Mothers and the people who birth us can be completely seperate things, to see the world as everyone’s mother is the person who birthed them strips motherhood from those who did not. It’s something to be mindful of in how we view things.
I’m removing myself from this conversation now, I’ve said my views on these topics and I feel this is starting to get heated.
I am not attacking cis women at all, I am attacking ideas about what biology means in relation to womanhood.
Responding to a study about how cis women’s brains are changed during pregnancy by accusing me of pushing TERF ideas sure feels like an attack on cis women.
I’m not equating any of this as definitions of what a woman is. And again, I openly resent you trying to paint me as a TERF here.
Edit:
I’m removing myself from this conversation now, I’ve said my views on these topics and I feel this is starting to get heated.
Yeah, accusing others of pushing TERF ideas with absolutely no basis will get people pretty heated.
No, I’m being sincere. I shared a study about how pregnancy affects people’s brains and had a discussion about mitochondrial DNA and that has seemed to offend quite a few people.
I’m honestly trying to figure out why sharing those things was upsetting.
You referenced things getting mystical - what are you talking about with that? I’m trying to figure it out.
This honestly doesn’t sound like they’re projecting at all - they speak of their own experience. I think they’re upset because you’ve said that biological attributes would “disagree” with an honest insight into their life’s experience.
Their mother - the person who acted in a motherly role in their life. The person who raised them, cared for them, helped them grow - is not product of biological attributes.
I think there were two conversations happening and the conversation about how DNA is passed along with the X chromosome was never intended to exclude anyone. Same as linking to the study about changes in the brain during pregnancy.
Thank you for explaining the breakdown in communication there, I was sincerely having a difficult time understanding where the hostility was coming from yesterday.
It is what it is at this point. I’d like to think my other contributions make it clear my intent has never been to exclude anyone, but I’m aware that I’m not going to be everyone’s cup of tea.
Your mitochondria may beg to differ.
This conversation is not an attack on adopted people or trans women.
My mitochondria may link me to the person who birthed me, it does not link me to my mother.
That was the exact point that was made.
Yes, and mine is that such a person is not my mother. The words used by the person I was responding to and the notion I am challenging that motherhood is biologically linked.
You’re projecting a lot onto these comments.
Acknowledging how mitochondrial DNA is passed is not a judgment on adopted people.
I’m explaining my connections with these concepts and how they are not absolute truths.
What people think of as a mother/woman is a judgement on how society views mothers/women.
I may be a killjoy, but I need to challenge these ways of thinking.
You’re attacking allies and very real biological truths of the cis women in here.
Scientific facts, like how mitochondrial DNA is passed from cis women to their offspring, are not TERF ideas that need to be challenged.
I am not “attacking” cis women at all, I am attacking ideas about what biology means in relation to womanhood.
I never claimed dna being passed down was TERF, I used that word in response to your bioessentialiasm and socialisation language when I responded to your comment.
To this users comment I was talking about what motherhood is, and that is not defined by one’s mitochondrial DNA. Mothers and the people who birth us can be completely seperate things, to see the world as everyone’s mother is the person who birthed them strips motherhood from those who did not. It’s something to be mindful of in how we view things.
I’m removing myself from this conversation now, I’ve said my views on these topics and I feel this is starting to get heated.
Responding to a study about how cis women’s brains are changed during pregnancy by accusing me of pushing TERF ideas sure feels like an attack on cis women.
I’m not equating any of this as definitions of what a woman is. And again, I openly resent you trying to paint me as a TERF here.
Edit:
Yeah, accusing others of pushing TERF ideas with absolutely no basis will get people pretty heated.
Nah, they’re pretty rightfully blowing a hole in the side of a boat that was definitely starting to get a bit woo.
We are not special unique mystical beings. We are humans
What?
We can’t even speak about objective facts like DNA transfer through pregnancy here?
Are cis women not welcome to share their perspectives here?
…are you seriously trying to play a cis victim card??
Fwiw, i’m bloody cis
No, I’m being sincere. I shared a study about how pregnancy affects people’s brains and had a discussion about mitochondrial DNA and that has seemed to offend quite a few people.
I’m honestly trying to figure out why sharing those things was upsetting.
You referenced things getting mystical - what are you talking about with that? I’m trying to figure it out.
This honestly doesn’t sound like they’re projecting at all - they speak of their own experience. I think they’re upset because you’ve said that biological attributes would “disagree” with an honest insight into their life’s experience.
Their mother - the person who acted in a motherly role in their life. The person who raised them, cared for them, helped them grow - is not product of biological attributes.
I think there were two conversations happening and the conversation about how DNA is passed along with the X chromosome was never intended to exclude anyone. Same as linking to the study about changes in the brain during pregnancy.
Thank you for explaining the breakdown in communication there, I was sincerely having a difficult time understanding where the hostility was coming from yesterday.
It is what it is at this point. I’d like to think my other contributions make it clear my intent has never been to exclude anyone, but I’m aware that I’m not going to be everyone’s cup of tea.
I agree with you and will also note that they are denying the fatherhood of trans men who have borne children