I think it goes without saying that this conversation would be proceeding very differently, were it not for the two conversations that preceded it. I've often seen statements asserting what "real men" and "real women" do and don't do. Real men don't cry, real men know how to change a tire, real men appreciate a good single malt whisky. Real women have curves, real women don't pump gas, real women don't enjoy anal. As with any variation of the No True Scotsman fallacy, the question is raised: what, exactly, are the people who fall outside of the prescribed requirements? If someone or something that otherwise would be referred to as a woman is deemed insufficiently curvaceous (say, due to anorexia, or chemotherapy, or some form of metabolic disorder), then we have to ask what she is, if not a "real woman". If we deny her femininity, are we asserting that she is a man, or some sort of nongendered adult? If we deny her adulthood, are we asserting that, regardless of her age, she is to be treated like a child? If we deny her humanity, is she some form of skinny bipedal livestock? | ||||
0309------------------------------------- |