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

I'm ticking a hell of a lot of criteria off the list here.

"The list" was just intended as a ball-park of sorts.

By the way, I'm really glad people are up for discussing this with me as I've felt so far removed from the points of view expressed in some of the trans threads that I haven't known how to start raising my concerns... so here I am, having bailed in clumsily, but I really am interested in understanding the debate and finding out where I sit in relation to other feminists.

Given that women can make whatever choices they like and live any lifestyle they choose I would have to define them by what society places on them that is specific to their being women. So greater discrimination and underrepresentation in higher positions in the workplace. Greater scrutiny over appearance and a more sexualised norm of acceptable presentation. More likely to suffer violence and sexual assaults. Generally lower paid, achievements less recognised or celebrated etc.

So “women” is synonymous with “the opressed”? Is this what transwomen mean when they say they feel like women?

I note you have left out “most likely to be expected to perform a physical and emotional caring role and most likely to do domestic labour”. I wonder why.

But why would you not be allowed to resort to biology. Surely that's the obvious go to?

Yeah, but then there's this group of people telling me that it isn't sufficient; that they aren't biologically men or women, but are indeed men or women. So I'm seeing if there's an alternative, you know, giving it the benefit of the doubt.

If transwomen themselves would tell us what they think being a woman is, we might get to the bottom of it.

Well this is where I think the real problem is, isn't it. Understandably we (me included at various points) have been crying out for trans individuals to tell us in ways we can understand, words and feelings we can relate to, what it is that makes their experience "real". They haven't been able to do it to anyone's satisfaction it would seem. At first I found that deeply problematic. But since then I've been forced to wonder whether or not me and my rational mind have the right to deem someone else's lived experience as "not what they thought it was" just because they can't satisfy my need to understand it. I mean I've been through things in life - many of us have - that I couldn't possibly explain to the satisfaction of everyone. Thankfully those experiences don't compel me to seek acceptance from others for them; thankfully, because I'd be stuffed! But that's the predicament trans people are in. And I don't know, I've seen a lot of pain and a lot of passion from the trans people I've known. They really are invested in the reality of their experience. I'm inclined to back that I think - I don't know - it's complicated.

"Given that women can make whatever choices they like and live any lifestyle they choose I would have to define them by what society places on them that is specific to their being women. So greater discrimination and underrepresentation in higher positions in the workplace. Greater scrutiny over appearance and a more sexualised norm of acceptable presentation. More likely to suffer violence and sexual assaults. Generally lower paid, achievements less recognised or celebrated etc."

So how would this encompass women, transwomen, but not people from ethnic minorities? Thank about what black men have to put up with. Paid less, more at risk of violence, frequently portrayed in the media in a hypersexualised way, less celebrated, less likely to be in politics... I'm ticking a hell of a lot of criteria off the list here.

Rat, please could you define “woman”?

Do you really not have any concerns about men (even those who claim to be women) competing in sports against actual biological women?

Ooh, I had a stab at a definition the other day, although honestly it was just another "off the cuff" attempt at trying to express where I think I currently stand on the issue. Hang on, I'll look for it...

Okay, so the question I asked myself was "if you were obliged to define "women" but we're not allowed to resort to biology, how would you do it?"

Given that women can make whatever choices they like and live any lifestyle they choose I would have to define them by what society places on them that is specific to their being women. So greater discrimination and underrepresentation in higher positions in the workplace. Greater scrutiny over appearance and a more sexualised norm of acceptable presentation. More likely to suffer violence and sexual assaults. Generally lower paid, achievements less recognised or celebrated etc.

Thinking about it if you defined "men" in similar terms, trans women would certainly have more in common with the definition of women than of men, wouldn't they? So perhaps ignoring biology in your definition is what you're all failing to do, I don't know.

Literally copied and pasted that but I guess I'm still in the same place since Saturday so I'll stand by it for now, pending more info.

Do you really not have any concerns about men (even those who claim to be women) competing in sports against actual biological women?

Very keen amateur sportsperson myself but I just haven't experienced the concern around this in real life that is expressed here on MN. Are there many sportswomen speaking out about their concerns?

Also MRAs use "females" to talk about women and girls all the time, they've managed to turn it into a disrespectful term. It makes us sound like animals.

"In this country, the females generally leave the family home after sexual maturity" yes awesome like a gnu or something.

Anyway irrelevant anyway as females is also no longer for cunty ones only.

No,

Transwomen are also female.

Female is not usable to describe cunty types.

Also, woman means adult human female. The sociological stuff is feminine. That's the expectations around behaviours etc. Woman used to mean grown up person with with a cunt. Nothing more, nothing less.

Rat you're behind the times. Apparently female is also a word which can be used of trans individuals. I've even seen tweets where transwomen have said that once they've had their neo-vagina constructed, they're "cis" (there, you see, someone wants to use that word...)

It is not unless you allow arseholes to dictate to you

So you still agree that we need a term for the group that produces eggs, previously known as women / girls / female?

Well I thought female was the word denoting biological status? "Women" to me has a sociological context, "girls" contextualises age, "ladies" makes indirect reference to status maybe... not saying these are definitive by any stretch, just going off the cuff. So you if want to be specific with regards to a body's biology you can say female, no? But if it's referencing someone to be accepted and "treated" by society as a woman, calling them a woman in that context is understandable perhaps. Not without it's problems I concede, but understandable. That's just my take on it.

Oh, and why should women on women’s marches not mention vaginas and breasts, Rat?

Rat, please could you define “woman”?

Do you really not have any concerns about men (even those who claim to be women) competing in sports against actual biological women? Do you not have any concerns about male sex offenders who self -identify as women being housed in women’s prisons?

How about Gash?

That's always a nice one.

Hole? I mean we have a front hole now rather than a vagina, so. "Three holes"? While transwomen have 2 holes and a vagina. Maybe a little too league of gentlemen (no tails!!!).

I think it would be good to get some suggestions on the table.

"Non People" is a good one - a bit like non men and describes our situation in quite a few countries around the world succinctly.

Or maybe something made up - Gribbles? Drongies? Splanners?

Any votes?

Of course it won't work because the whole point is that cunty-people-as-a-group must no longer be recognised or discussed. There must always be consideration of the dick. Whatever the new name for cunty people is, there will be outrage if it isn't immediately expanded to include the D.

Certainly I can think of lots of words for us that have the benefit of being things we are called a lot already

Cunts is easy to remember, factual, and already something we get called quite a lot, so.

Any other suggestions?

So we can talk about things that happen to cunty people, as opposed to "girls" who may be any sort of person at all really.

So you still agree that we need a term for the group that produces eggs, previously known as women / girls / female?

Any suggestions?

How about Cunts?

The problem with the change in language is that it removes and replaces the current well understood meanings of man/woman, male/female, girl/boy, making it very difficult to then talk about issues that affect one sex more than another.

In the short to medium term I can see there are complications that arise from the whole notion of incorporating trans into our world view. Absolutely it makes it more difficult to find the words. Does that mean it isn't worth overcoming that, given that over time it will almost certainly get easier? Not sure.

If you can't address the concerns that people keep bringing up, just ignore them!

Not sure what you're referencing exactly.

Why can't trans be celebrated?

I don't know, I really don't know. But my limited experience with transpeople is that their journey is one of seeking acceptance in a particular identity, and that identity is not one of having been something else first, it's of having always been that thing but with a body which does not correlate. The idea of feeling that way, to me, is beyond imagining. It's beyond logic to me to feel one's body "does not correlate" - because to me my body is me and I am it... But that's me. I can see why celebrating "used to be that, now this" is not the same thing as "is this, has always been this, body either does not correlate or has undergone medical treatment in an attempt to correlate, but still this".

Yes of course they do, if it’s something manmade, like “marriage”. But if it’s just something immutable like “dog” or “water” or “stone” or “woman” then no they don’t.

Of course those things are immutable, but the terms used to describe them are man-made - necessarily man-made. As is all language, categorisation, measurement etc. These terms describe the reality of things, but the descriptors are not real things in and of themselves. (Sorry, got a bit fluffy with my language there, but this is my dissertation subject so it all comes flooding back...)

NOW you tell me?

Yeah I'm real subtle. Sorry.

Having plastic surgery to make yourself have pointy ears does not make you a Vulcan, it makes you a human with pointy ears.

?????????????

NOW you tell me?

Having plastic surgery to make yourself have pointy ears does not make you a Vulcan, it makes you a human with pointy ears.

?????????????

NOW you tell me?

But now that a woman can have a penis, I'm not so sure.

Women can't have a penis. If you start down this road then there is no way back. You know women have vaginas and men have penises. It will never change. If someone has their penis removed and a neovagina constructed, then they are still a man, just a man with no penis and a neovagina.

Having plastic surgery to make yourself have pointy ears does not make you a Vulcan, it makes you a human with pointy ears. No matter how much in your brain you want to be a Vulcan and how logical you think you are.

It still means what it's always meant.
India Willoughby is a transwoman as far as I know.

Extraordinary claimed need extraordinary proof. And “transwomen are women” is an extraordinary claim. As far as I know, there hasn’t been any proof at all- never mind extraordinary proof......l