"One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman", so... was she right?

This seems more like common sense. So why are we talking about this like it's something profound?

Upthread someone posted "there is nothing to become" so it's not as obvious to Veeky Forums as you assume.

>analyzing statements out of context

Read existentialism. That's the best context I can give you.

de Beavoir's books are pretty much existentialism through the female perspective. Feminist ideology is blended throughout, but it's not ''MUH MODERN FEMINIST'' schlock. She's severely underrated in the field of fem lit and feminist theory overall.

Pretty much all of her viewpoints are reasonable and, more than that, she lived the life she espoused. Pretty incredible woman desu.

No.This bitch just didn't see herself as a woman and generalized her phallic complex to all other females.

She says it like Sartre only with a vagina. You ought to think that means nothing then, but it did mean a lot at the time, because the feminine societal build is that much different historically from the male build i.e we are pretty much wired with different cables as far as social functions go.

Unfortunately, de Beavoir's does not have much standing among feminist academics (which goes a long way to show that she was actually doing good lol). If women took it her way, we'd have them more or like blending smoothly into the male centric society, in a much less painful synthesis than what went on with third wave feminism. She did not advocate for special snowflakes and refused to acknowledge paradoxical positions such as the popular "X is only a social construct we should destroy but X-oriented people still deserve particular treatment".

If you're a man reading de Beavoir's work, you'll think it's common sense, because males had much more time to establish their societal builds independently from women, but if you're female, you'll either be pleased that you can finally put yourself in your own place (rather than taking place under or above men) or you'll be revolted that you have to give up on the privileges society impose on you so that you shut up and remain a girly woman. I think women have a lot to gain from de Beavoir, if not at least to finally face their own conflicts (or even creating them if they were hard puppets).

I wouldn't say she's underrated it's just that the vast majority who read her aren't in it for the existential philosophy per se. So all the comes out is surface readings and name dropping the Other occasionally.

Yes. It works for other labels as well. You're not born a worker but you become one as the characteristics of a worker are assigned to you. You're not born black but become black as people treat you as a black person. So on and so forth. You're born free and then people around you structure your life with what they define you as. It's basic sociology senpai.

>You're not born a low-IQ idiot, but become on as people treat you as such
>You're not born a psychopath, but become one as people treat you as such
>You're not born a schizophreniac, but become one as people treat you as such
>You're not born a Norwegian, but become one as people treat you as such

>can't walk, blind, crying, starve and die of exposure if you're not immediately coddled for years on end to even somewhat become an autonomous being
>born free

You're being intentionally obtuse. Have you never felt an experience of becoming in your life? Have you blamed everything on circumstances outside of your control? You know his point to be true in your own life, why mischaracterize it?

Beavoir and Sartre did not advocate for absolute social constructivism, they only sought to skip the ontological and metaphysical quests and go straight to building "you". However, "not being born a woman" does not mean you have no biological constraints at all. I reckon if they actually cared for biology, "existence precedes essence" would instead be a statement like "nature and nurture form a feedback circuit where one modifies the other".

kill yourself

>Have traps appropriated this yet?
Why would they?

Alphabet ideology is the exact opposite: you are born a letter of the alphabet and then raised and assigned as straight and cis and binary, and probably white and male while you're at it.

If they were to acknowledge a becoming, a choice, a transformative event they would open themselves to treatment and scrutiny.

It was my understanding that you aren't born as much of anything at all under that type of ideology. Assumed they leaned more toward a muh blank slate type of view, no?

"Not much of anything at all" itself is a letter of the alphabet, which validates my point about reversing how the transformation happens for ideological purposes.

Let me explain how it relates in the case of what you call "traps": the story goes that they are assigned males but they were females all along!

They were born women, and born as letter Ts, which would be in opposition to the quote in OP.

So "traps" want nothing of that.

But isn't gender socially constructed under their framework? That is, how is someone born a "woman" if feminity doesn't exist a priori? If they're born into a male body yet predisposed to baking or some such, how is that "feeling like a woman" if "boys can bake too?"
I assumed their ideology was more about loosening gender roles, yes? Thanks for your reply btw.

Not that guy, but keep in mind contemporary social constructivism has lost itself amidst postmodern thinking. While it should be about loosening gender roles, in the end it amounts to "creating new gender roles everytime someone does anything different". Whereas the original social constructivists wanted to do away with roles, the newer ones (even unwillingly) want "their place in society" rather than "out of society", therefore they have to fit into the spectrum as another stock option.

It gets more extreme and easier to see where I'm going with this when you swap gender for race. Racism nowadays amount to a kind of heresy among both academics and civil society in general, because we are all "born equal", and society builds social constructs used to perpetuate illusory power relationships. However, even where social differences are notwithstanding, advocates of racial movements reclaim ever more rights and ever more reparations, as a kind of "divine retribution" that has no actual linking to reality anymore. We (as society) engage in racial rights movements and equality groups, but when it comes to the point of "hitting the wall of particulars" we are forced to concede that everyone is their special snowflake instead of making the jump to a homogeneous society we were about to make. Like in Orwell, "everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others". This esteems I believe, from the hindsight of thinking "nature vs nurture" is even a "vs" question rather than a feedback circuitry where individuals modify their surroundings but are in turn modified by the very thing they strived to change.

TL;DR: modern queer theory is a losing battle against logic, they believe in both a thing and the negation of that thing at the same time (there are no genders/there are infinite genders).

>womemes

Woman as a defined cultural role, yes she's right.

try the redpill

their are women and women, masculinity and femininity. liberals have try to destroy this by beomcing women through notions of equality and leftism

in reality real men like conservatism. women belong in the kitchen

Yeah. You're born as a baby meatsack.

>therefore they have to fit into the spectrum as another stock option
This in practice means that new letters of the alphabet are added.

So first you have gay rights and LG, immediately after them B joins, I mean how could we ever forget about B. Much arguing later they're joined by T, relatively recently Q showed up, then...

If this philosophy of difference worked as originally advertised, the categorizing, the letters, the identities would be reducing, not increasing.

It's like going from black and white to splitting black into all manner of ethnicities, instead of undergoing the most revolutionary revolution of all time:

Introducing... the HUMAN!™

I DRESS LIKE A HUMAN™
I ARRANGE MY HAIR LIKE A HUMAN™
I FUCK HUMANS™ LIKE A HUMAN™

Crazy, right?

This is obviously what she meant.
I love that most criticism of that qupte on this thread were based on pure semantics: it really speaks volume on Veeky Forums's critical thinking.

yes, everything is a social construction : ^ )

For social constructionism there is nothing outside the cultural role, and that is not semantics

try the redpill and see the objective truth. No amount of cultural marxism will help you realize Absolute non-ideological undistorted objective capital T truth

There are men and there are women
there are whites and there are blacks

The former are inherently superior to the latter.

is this post-irony?

>if you arent brainwashed by liberalism then you must be ironic!!
join us on /pol/ and /r9k/ if you want to understand the truth of what's happening to the white man

whoa did halloween come early this year because this whole post is one big spook

>t. leftist liberal feminist who hates whiteness and masculinity

hey sweetie, you still trying to fight the patriarchy? you go gurl!!

Are you denying that the white man is inherently superior to women or nonwhites?

Fuck off back to pleddit with your hurt feefees. This place is for rationality and logic

>This place is for rationality and logic
and yet in spite of all this you still post. amazing really.

>t. women who can't bear to hear the truth of her own inferiority and emotional nature

Go wash the dishes, sweety. White men are talking

>being this spooked

>Western civilization is a spook, and the white man didn't do a thing!!!!

Nice try, libcuck. In my veins runs the blood of conquerors, princes, innovators, philosophers, and nation builders.

>tfw simone will never tie your hands to the bedposts and sit on your face

>you will never sniff her ass

>Nice try, libcuck. In my veins runs the blood of conquerors, princes, innovators, philosophers, and nation builders.

so not only are whites hitting african-american levels of opiod abuse and addiction, they've even degenerated into "we wuz kangz" shit, wow, sad. and then they want to blame the few fellow whites who actually went to college and got a job (aka libcucks) for their own flyover country decadence. "woooo lad" as the brits are wont to say.

it looks like "libcuck" is becoming the white version of that "acting white" shit blacks do, the degeneration of the white race may be sad, but it is interesting to watch an identity group niggerize itself before my eyes

Mine wasn't even a criticism.

Speaks volumes to your critical thinking.