this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2025
810 points (100.0% liked)

Microblog Memes

8432 readers
2883 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 137 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Diogenes would be proud here

[–] [email protected] 87 points 2 months ago (3 children)

My first thought too.

To anyone unaware, plato defined man as "a featherless biped" so Diogenes brought a plucked chicken

[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You can't spell genius without Diogenes

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago
[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Why does it always come back to chickens?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I wonder how Plato would have defined man if he knew kangaroos existed.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago

featherless tail-less biped? then we could have a story about Diogenes fighting a kangaroo to cut off its tail

[–] [email protected] 105 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I find the phrase “Born with the intention” in itself worthy of head-scratching.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I think its meant sort of as physical intention aka the body doesn't have the ability to "hold eggs" (jfc) yet but will try to develop the capability in the future. A sneaky way to try and include infertile cis women but it still excludes many of them as there are various reasons for infertility. Interestingly the phrasing also excludes all women post menopause but that's to be expected given the amount of representation those usually get (the amount being zero).

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (10 children)

Also post-hysterectomy if it includes the ovaries. Sorry bitch, still a woman.

Personally my definition of a woman is anyone subject to misogyny.

I suppose it's wrong, because attacks on transmen are also rooted in misogyny, but that's the misogynists' fault.

For the religious: "Sometimes God puts a soul into a body that doesn't match. The soul is sacred, and until it can be released from the body permanently, we owe it to those souls to recognize and help them. God doesn't make mistakes, it's us He's testing."

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago

Women are born with their eggs, but that’s not true for women who are born without ovaries, which has got to be possible, so this is a dumb definition anyway

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Born with the intention to chew bubblegum & Rock n' Roll.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

AND I'M ALL OUTTA BUBBLEGUM

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 72 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

One internet search later:

https://patient.info/forums/discuss/born-without-ovaries-634173

There are cis women born without ovaries.

Thus Lea the bigot is disproven.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago

I think she already knew, why else would she mention the people born with the intent of holding eggs (whatever that means).

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 47 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Is this the kind of picture millionaires take these days?

[–] [email protected] 31 points 2 months ago

Or anyone from, you know, the rest of the world.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I'm having trouble finding anyone born with intention. Neither biology nor evolution have plans or intentions. We are fundamentally lipid based sacks of water.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They're arguing from a religious perspective that understands God as providing intentionality

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 2 months ago

There's hormonal, chromosomal, and gamete definitions of biological woman/man and you'll want to be specific about which youre referencing and why it is even relevent for the text.

Hormonal woman with XY ("male") chromosomes and no eggs: Complete Androgen Insensitivity

Chromosomal woman with no eggs and low hormones: Swyer Syndrome (born without ovaries)

Men who have eggs: Chimeras, probably, and this guy: https://www.yahoo.com/news/chinese-man-shocked-learn-ovaries-202311718.html

[–] [email protected] 34 points 2 months ago (4 children)

It is deeply confusing to me why people think they can define a word in a way that covers all it's meaning and no additional ones and make fun of those who admit they can't.

Challenge for anyone, define "to eat". Remember, you have to cover eating soup but not drinking tea, or smoothie. But obviously, that isn't everything.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago (2 children)

It shouldn't be that confusing, considering this is literally the challenge lawmakers (honest ones, as rare as they are) face.

There's a great blog post by Neil Gaiman (despite recent revelations about his misconduct) that talks about "why we must defend icky speech".

Long story short, the law is a blunt instrument. If you cannot clearly and accurately define the terms being used in the language of the law then you wind up with a law that can be applied beyond the intended scope. Like when you write laws about freedom of religion and then wind up with The Satanic Temple erecting statues of Baphomet in court houses. Or banning the Bible from library because it contains depictions of violence and sexual deviancy or promiscuity

These issues aren't just academic. They have real-world consequences. Like, there have literally been legal rulings made based on the presence or absence of an Oxford comma

Is that kind of pedantry useful to the average conversation? No, of course not. But there are people trying to make laws that target women, or trans women, and if they can't accurately define what a woman is then the law can be used to target people they didn't want targeted.

Which is one of many reasons why trying to target trans folks with legal authority is a fool's errand

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago

What shouldn't be confusing?

In this particular case the available words are easily found in a dictionary, and if it comes to law you can easily write about cisgender women and transgender women.

The problem is people that want the word women to not include trans women. They want to say trans women are not women, while also saying trans men aren't women, and that's why to them it is gets confusing talking about what gender is. Because once they realise they are basically saying trans people are not people, they subconsciously know they are morally wrong. And it's confusing when you think you are doing something that is morally right, while knowing (maybe only subconsciously) you're not.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 months ago (4 children)

"capability of holding eggs" covers the vast majority of humankind. Hands are useful like that.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 months ago

Welcome to the joke.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 months ago

Ah, I can see Diogenes has made an impact on people.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 months ago (4 children)

In this economy?

There's gotta be at least six figures worth of eggs in this photo

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 months ago (2 children)

That man is moments away from financial disaster

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago

That man is 100% in Germany. He's fine.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 months ago (3 children)

There’s a deep insecurity in recognizing that there aren’t “objective right answers” to a lot of things. Language is not a law, it’s a negotiated thing. Being a trans man doesn’t sunder me completely from the existence of living as a girl, and there are contexts in which my “assigned” sec does matter. The fact that abortion is utterly illegal in my state is just as harmful and terrifying to me as it is to the cis women I know.

These are people who desperately want to feel in control of the world, and the idea that they would not be able to put a person into a category based on their immediate evaluation of their sex makes them feel a loss of control. It’s attacking something of their ways of knowing, it’s an epistemological challenge that sends them reeling.

With lesbians - it’s the gold star lesbian types. They find joy in their identities as lesbians, which is great, but they treat penis in vagina sex as a contagion. It almost “horseshoe theory”‘s back into sounding like conservative Christians. They squint at some actually good critiques of porn and the way that human sexuality is marketed, and turn into a Holy War against the Y chromosome. This is not common - but it’s a very marked type of pathology. The TERFs are the type to actually be manhaters - to post things like “it’s a girl or it’s an abortion.”

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Trying to categorize people into strict definitions for the purpose of determining their responsibilities without considering feedback from the people themselves about how they want to categorize themselves violates Kant's categorical imperative, also known as Granny Weatherwax's definition of sin as “when you treat people as things”:

The nature of sin

“There is a very interesting debate raging at the moment about the nature of sin, for example.”

“And what do they think? Against it, are they?”

“It’s not as simple as that. It’s not a black and white issue. There are so many shades of gray.”

“Nope.”

“Pardon?”

“There’s no grays, only white that’s got grubby. I’m surprised you don’t know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is.”

“It’s a lot more complicated than that—”

“No. It ain’t. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they’re getting worried that they won’t like the truth. People as things, that’s where it starts.”

“Oh, I’m sure there are worse crimes—”

“But they starts with thinking about people as things . . .”

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago

Look man I know that my taxonomy doesn't work... but have you considered that it was created with the intent to work?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago (5 children)

From a biological perspective, this question has been answered already as it's really not that hard.

Many people apparently just don't like the answer.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Ther is literally no definition you give that will not exclude any cis women at all.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago

Why do I get the feeling the "answer" you're talking about is just chromosomes

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That's female, not woman, but it was a nice try

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago (6 children)

I know you probably don't want to hear this, but from a biological standpoint, it's the same thing. Different female animals have their "own" names aswell, like Ewe (female sheep), Sow (female Pigs), Hen (female Chicken), Doe (female goat), Mare (female horse) etc. Same thing for humans - we just happen to call the female ones "Woman".

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago (10 children)

That's not a "biological standpoint" it's a social one. We invented the names for animals. And there's more than one word for female horse because it was useful for us to differentiate foal/yearling/filly/mare, and males get an extra one if they're castrated.

Speaking of inventing names for things: biological sex is not the same concept as gender even though they are very often aligned and used interchangeably. It's just people who don't know enough about anthropology and biology lack the full context to understand that.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (10 children)

This is such an insane statement. In biology almost any kind of sexual behavior has been observed including male species who carry the young in their body (sea horses), species that are both male and female, species that change gender during a lifetime, species without gender etc etc. Literally anything goes in the biological world.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

Actually more complicated than that. Sex is broken up into a bunch of factors. Phenotype is the word used to mean the grouping of characteristics we associate with either male or female. So that roughly covers genitals, secondary characteristics (boobs, body hair, build differences etc)... But it's actually wild.

  • Chromasomal sex - On it's own means very little. If you have say an XY chromasome but for the sake of example an androgen insensitivity you develop as (phenotypically) female in the womb.

  • Horomonal Sex - Is the mix of horomones that impact development. Whether you develop to appear male or female starts in the early stages of development in rhe womb and then kicks into high gear as puberty and can change unexpectedly. This means for example that there's people who were born appearing entirely female and yet naturally develop along male lines later and vice versa.

  • Internal reproductive Anatomy - This one gets crazy where individuals don't always have internal organs that match their chromosomes. You can have opposite, none, both.

The precursor of trans medicine involved a lot of case studies seeing how naturally occuring variation in biological sex worked and the more it was studied the more scientists began to panic because they realized that the model of sorting into two strict sexes was flawed. There's a lot of people out there who live practically their entire lives only to realize at the doctor's office that they have surprise characteristics quietly existing hidden just below the skin. This lead to scientists realizing that for the most part the idea of phenotype and indeed a strict definition for biological sex is actually pretty wishy-washy.

The reason you weren't taught this in high school is more or less that they just don't prioritize it because they have to coach a group of students, many of whom are not scholarly material, through an overview of stuff. High school biology is basically all technically wrong because it's been simplified to give you a taste of the discipline. If you start going to med school the first thing they do is tell you to light everything you think you know about the body on fire, throw it in the trash and start from scratch because half the stuff you were taught is going to need be unlearned. "Chromosome = sex" is one of the things that goes in the burn bin.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago

A woman is when a guy crosses the line. You say "Wo! Man!"

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

It's funny, but it's not really a rebuttal, since the claim is that it doesn't exclude any cis women. A better rebuttal would be antinatalist women who are also born with defective ovaries. (I'm sure there'd be at least one person like that.)

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›