Why is the definition of a woman so confusing these days?

It would seem the place to direct those, including politicians, who haven't thought this through.

whoputthecat I imagine there are a great many politicians who are considered not to have thought it through. Could it not be that they have taken a realistic approach to where they think this might go, as in where it's actually likely to go? Rather than thinking it through to it's most extreme conclusion which - let's face it - is hugely implausible. "Thinking things through" in that respect is also known as... catastrophising.

rat

IIf they were right, they would be able to give you an objective definition of "woman" under which they fell*

"Well they are adult humans who are female or identify as such, so that one's covered, right?"

No. Not covered. You don't appear to be reading what we are saying. The definition of women can't mean adult human female and any adult human male.

...any person who lives as a woman would compete as one I suppose

No such thing as 'living as a woman' unless you are one. I would be interested if you could describe living as a woman, without being one.

They represent what could happen, what extreme lengths extreme individuals might go to, but extremism could always happen, under any status quo; it doesn't mean it's likely to happen,

Yeah, laws should not be made on the basis that some people may not exploit them. Particularly if they are the kind of laws that are eminently exploitable. Which are being exploited. Over, and over.

Plus, your reference to homosexuality. It never ceases to amaze me how people invoke homosexuality as a reason to agree with transgenderism. When transgenderism directly undermines homosexuality and says that your sexual orientation is a preference, that can be changed.

That lesbians are bigoted for not disregarding their sexual orientation in favour of a man with a penis.

rat

I've givien you the benefit of the doubt because I think you're trying to understand. But I'm not sure if it's comprehension skills or just a dogged determination to not understand, but your posts aren't making any sense, given what we have already said.

I don't know anything about that UpstartCrow.

RatRolyPoly
Do you support women being sued for hate speech for saying men are not women?

They hijack feminism to talk about what it means to them. And they are basing that on the 90% of things that matter to them, not women.

That doesn't have to be the case; anyone can try to hijack the feminist agenda with their own, and to a degree all women's experiences are valid to some extent, but why does that mean feminism will be "overrun"? Groups are still democratic; if someone is pulling something to their own agenda you just say "oy, I think we need to recentre this discussion on a more widespread issue for the moment, ta".

If they were right, they would be able to give you an objective definition of "woman" under which they fell

Well they are adult humans who are female or identify as such, so that one's covered, right?

to compete in women's sports you have to be a woman, an adult human female, or any other person who wants to compete as a woman?

...any person who lives as a woman would compete as one I suppose, yes. I agree with segregated sport - men and women - but in my experience in sport is that everyone accepts the lines of segregation are a broad stroke. There will always (usually) be people at the time of your peak physical capability who have a natural physical advantage over you. You may achieve better than them through hard work and training, or they may do better than you with less hard work but with better luck. If you're born ten years later you may be the person with the most advantageous biology amongst your peers. Doesn't mean you'll be the best. This is the sports mentality that I'm familiar with, which is why I asked if there were really very many sportspeople up in arms about this. One or two maybe, but very many given how many sports there are played at however many levels across the globe? I just don't see them.

But yeah, if suddenly if there were millions of transpeople everywhere, competing in things left, right and centre, as numerous as non-trans athletes, transmen would likely be broadly disadvantaged and transwomen advantaged. So perhaps there would be a call for further segregation along different biological lines; but who knows what's in the future.

Can I suggest that you take some time to maybe engage with what transactivists are actually saying? Because this intellectual exercise has real life consequences.

Unfortunately many people called to arms as "transactivists" are a certain type of "extremist"; certainly some of the more vocal ones I imagine. They represent what could happen, what extreme lengths extreme individuals might go to, but extremism could always happen, under any status quo; it doesn't mean it's likely to happen, or that if it did we wouldn't be able to find a way to mitigate it at the time. I'm being nebulous, but are you following me?

NDP party Morgane Oger is calling for a woman who was pictured holding a sign saying "transwomen are men" to be taken to a Human Rights Tribunal

What about if it said "homosexuality is unnatural" 50 years ago? I don't know this case, and I'm not personally offended by her sign (although it makes me wince, I don't know why), but surely we can put some faith in the justice system?

Rat the reason advancement for homosexuals is different is that, whilst some people found it distasteful/wrong, it dodn't actually impact upon anybody else.

You say that, but I remember the legacy of parents up in arms that a gay woman could go out and become a PE teacher; and what of their daughters in the changing rooms with her? Any homosexual could go out at any time and get a job which put them into contact with people of the same sex - in toilets, in changing rooms, in schools - and they could perve all over them at will. They could go out there, train for 5 years to be a teacher, get a job and PERVE all over your daughters in their PE lessons That uproar definitely happened. But in reality 99.9999999% of gay teachers became teachers because they wanted to teach, 99.9999999% of transwomen want to use women's bathrooms because they believe they are women, and 0.0000001% of the population are perverts whatever we do.

Rat, what does it mean to “identify” as an adult human female?

It probably doesn't mean the same to me as it does to you. The thing is, I don't find the fact that our feelings on the subject are different to be a problem. If I said that, to me, identifying as a woman means having long hair and liking the look of my legs in dresses, and you said it was knowing you have two x chromosomes, it doesn't mean either of us isn't a woman. So I don't think "what it means" - and that being universal - really matters as much as one might think.

Haven't proof read any of this, but gonna hit post and take my chances.

The real question isn't really "what is the definition of woman?"

but rather
"what should we call all people who have their female biology in common?
and
"in whose interests is it to make it taboo to allow those people the right to discuss themselves or address the inequality they face as a specific group?"

Defining what a woman is is easy, but exactly what a transwoman is seems to be a 'spectrum' and a moving target, so you can't really come up with a wider definition of a woman that includes them at all times and in all ways (or even sometimes in some ways) that does not include men

Defining a transwoman is quite easy as well: its a man who lives as or wants to be or has had surgery to look like a woman.
There will never be an actual definition of woman that includes transwomen, because they are not women, no matter how loud they shout that they are.

Rat, what does it mean to “identify” as an adult human female? And why are the categories of male and female the only social categories we can identify ourselves into? Why can’t I identify as 8 years old? More to the point...in what way does identifying as a female actually make someone a female?

Fascinating thread, especially the last pages. It would seem the place to direct those, including politicians, who haven't thought this through.

(Severe abuse and attachment issues I may add, where physical changes in the infant's brain can be seen if they've been badly abused.)

There are two huge rapid phases of brain organisation in life; the first between 0-3 and the second at puberty.

Damage done in terms of attachment in the early years can sometimes be undone during puberty with the right input.

It stands to reason other things happen during those times that lead to the shaping of a young person and adult. And the brain is still developing in an adult up to age 25.

I understand your point rat, it's just I'm thinking of the flat earthers today that regularly get Brian Cox's goat going.

I do know how plastic the brain is in the first three years of life though and how much they pick up from a very young age; my son was well aware he couldn't breast feed his toys as he was a boy (so gave them to me) at the age of 2.5.

However, the brains of healthy babies are equal between the sexes at birth.

There is a lot of science there for us, concrete facts and evidence.

Rat the reason advancement for homosexuals is different is that, whilst some people found it distasteful/wrong, it dodn't actually impact upon anybody else.

Plus a person can categorically say "I find men/women/both sexually attractive and arousing". Yes it is a feeling, but they only speak for themselves in terms of "this person arouses me sexually but that person doesn't".

This is different because despite all the many men who claim to feel like a woman, not a single one of them can explain what that means in a way that any single woman can say "ah yes, that is definitely womanliness" because 'woman' isn't a feeling; it's a biological descriptor.

It does nothing more than explain the physical/hormonal/biological class of a person. It does not describe in any way how they feel. Given that a man cannot pissibly fall into that class, then theycanot be a woman.

They might like to 'dress up like a woman' or 'pretend to be a woman', but they are not, and can never be, women.

Defining what a woman is is easy, but exactly what a transwoman is seems to be a 'spectrum' and a moving target, so you can't really come up with a wider definition of a woman that includes them at all times and in all ways (or even sometimes in some ways) that does not include men.

But now no-one can define what a woman is

You're not helping by repeatiing this nonsense you know. I can define a woman, easily. So can you. We all can. Adult human female, xx chromosomes, vagina etc. It's couldn't be simpler.

Just because the lunatics are running the asylum and keep screaming at us that women can have penises and sex is whatever you want it to be, it doesn't mean we have to agree with such crap.

Yes I think I remember that Datun, it was that quote about them changing lots of things quietly, behind the scenes, wasn't it?

Strategic litigation is a tool and one I don't think we should be frightened of using. I found this guide but haven't had time to read through it yet. It focuses on challenging decisions by public bodies through judicial review.

PencilsInSpace

Thanks for clarifying.

I had never heard the term before I read about it being used by transactivist organisations.

I can't remember exactly who was using it, but they were lawyers.

I took it to mean that it would be used as some kind of test case to set precedent?

So not necessarily to address an injustice, but to use a tactic for subsequent cases.

Which I'm sure is quite a usual practice.

The fact that I first heard in relation to the trans issue was what was slightly chilling, for me.

It made me realise that this isn't confined to individuals. There is organisation and money behind it.

Who are hiring professionals.

Pro-boner 😂 😂

That's really what this is all about at the end of the day

Believe me, this is what strategic litigation means. Twisting the law to set a precedent that will allow men to dominate women.

Just popping in to clarify - 'strategic litigation' is in itself neutral. It's bringing a test case to clarify the law or change the way in which the law is interpreted.

I don't think the breastfeeding case was strategic litigation - the case was brought by the woman who had been discriminated against. It was the company's defence lawyers who argued that men can breastfeed too so it therefore wasn't sex discrimination.

The TIM who sued Vancouver Rape Relief for not letting him volunteer as a counsellor was strategic litigation. Lovely Lily's pro-boner letter to the school to get them to let Lily use the girls' facilities was the first step towards strategic litigation.

But - the crowdfunder to challenge the Labour party on AWS is also strategic litigation, as would be a case brought by a parent who wasn't told their DD would be sharing a tent with a male child at guide camp.

A neutral example of strategic litigation, away from the gender clusterfuck, is Doug Pauley's action against the bus company to ensure wheelchair users got to use the designated spaces they fought for. This is a good example of how strategic litigation works (i.e. why it's 'strategic') - Pauley took ONE bus company to court. The result was that ALL bus companies clarified and strengthened the rules.

As you were

RatRolyPoly, I'd really like to hear your take on whether sex segregation should be completely done away with (sport, changing rooms, prisons, support groups, refuges, etc etc). If not how do you include "anyone who identifies as a woman" in sex-segregated women's spaces, but exclude "men"?

If you don't exclude any man who wants to be included, what's the point of women's spaces?

I have a certain amount of respect for anyone who says "get rid of all women's spaces, get rid of segregation, get rid of categorisation by sex/gender completely". I don't agree with it, but it at least makes sense as a stance.

It's worth reading that long multi threaded twitter conversation. MTT and VP for British Columbia for the Canadian NDP party Morgane Oger is calling for a woman who was pictured holding a sign saying "transwomen are men" to be taken to a Human Rights Tribunal. It's chilling.

You can see how it pans out in Canada, where a politician is calling for a woman to be prosecuted for hate speech for saying biology is real. Thats how it pans out.

The only think this makes me think of sadly is the flat earthers.

Sorry, got the floorboards up and investigating a patch of damp in the hallway so can't pick up on all the things that have piqued my interest in this debate (but I will when the baby's asleep and the floor's back down!), but I'll pick up on this because I was thinking of flat-earthers this morning...

I was thinking not all that many people saw evidence of the world being round. Hardly anyone got to sail round it, or had an experienced something which evidenced its being round. It had always been flat, perhaps the definition even included the notion of its flatness. If it wasn't flat it was going to take an awful lot of effort to sort out how that worked with astronomy, scientific theory, and all the bloody maps would have to be redrawn! ...but it was round. And the few people who had experienced it were right. And perhaps those for whom it had always been flat never did believe them, not even at the end.

Similarly is it possible to be born gay? The majority used to say no. A few said "well I was".

Anyway, I can't stress enough how i GENUINELY do not have a set position in this, I'm just currently at the point of saying "yeah okay, could be true". I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt for the time being, and just exploring how that might pan out.

Back to the floor then will read more!

Yes, the real problem is that in order to widen the definition to include "some men" - those who "identify" as women - in reality the definition of woman has to include all men, simply because there is no way of proving which men identify as women.

"woman" will therefore mean "adult human".