Alternative Definitions of 'Woman'?

DickTERFin

Feeling an aversion to the thought that you are male/female is not the same as feeling female/male.

You are right! They are different, but they are both gender identities. One means, in this terminology,. you are cis, the other trans.

You can't point to where sexuality is in the body, you can't point to dysmorphia - that doesn't mean they are not real. It doesn't matter if you don't act on your sexuality, you still feel it, even in the absence of stimuli.

In fact, it's quite likely that gender identity is rooted in the physical, in the same way sexuality probably is. But I suspect even if could point to a physical cause, you still wouldn't buy the definition, in which case, this isn't your real objection.

There is so much conflating of sex and gender in the rest of your post that I can't easily pick it apart.

Female/male applies to all mammals.
Woman/man is the equivalent but unique to humans (hence being ‘...man’).

Feeling an aversion to the thought that you are male/female is not the same as feeling female/male.

Female and male are not feeling states.

Nor is, strictly speaking, sexuality. An individual does not feel homosexual or heterosexual, they have a physiological response to a stimulus - it is rooted firmly in the material body, not in the mind. Asexuality is a lack of physiological response to stimuli.

For gender identity to be a thing, it must be rooted in the material. So what and where is it in the body?

What is the mechanism in a body that overrides observable physical sex that isn't some amorphous "feeling"? What physiological responses are male bodies having that actual mean they are female bodies (and vice versa)? If there are some such responses, why are they more essential than somebody's actual sexed body?

'Female' and 'woman' aren't conflated - the latter is defined in terms of the former, and that is how it is understood by most people.

Yes, we haven't had the postmodern redefinition from DadJoke . Something that could go in a dictionary and be easily understood, and suitable for use in legislation please, since if it's got to be redefined we don't want a downgrade.

Dad:
Your definition of gender is pretty confusing. You said:

“Gender identity. The first thing to get out of the way is the use of the word "identify" which sounds like its an act of choice. It's an identity like an identity card - it describes who you are. In the same way that a person "feels" gay, even if they don't act on it, gender identity is an inherent state. So, your identity might be a man, a woman, or other gender. It's not a choice. ”

Ok so identity is not something you do or choose. Rather, as you say, gender describes who I am. But when you think about it for two seconds, there are lots of things that describe who I am- am to include all of these as part of my “gender?” I’m a certain age, five foot, no kids, a student, dog owner, beer drinker. All of these “describe who I am” - so is this what my gender is? The sum total of words that describe who I am? But that’s just my personality. If gender is narrower than this then you will have to tell me in what respects it describes who I am. Or to put it another way: what is the content of that description?

You then go onto describe gender as a”feeling” and make an analogy with sexual orientation. But again, I ask you, what is the feeling associated with having gender identity? If someone is a gay male it’s really easy for them to convey what they are feeling- they have sexual attraction towards men but not towards women. We can all imagine what that is like, and their orientation is highly understandable to us. So what does someone with a female gender identity feel? Suppose a man wants to know what it’s like to be a woman - what can someone with a female gender identity say? What is an approproate gender identity for a woman such that it matches her sex?

Can’t you see that, at the moment, your definition is really quite empty? You need to provide more details for this to make sense.

And, whatever this emergent 'gender identity' is, it's pretty clearly not a clear cut binary state. Some sort of continuous property- even that's way too simple, a person's identity may be 'feminine' in some regards and 'masculine' in others. And vary over time, or even day to day. I don't know what redefinition of woman was being used the day Pips Bunce won a woman's award but I can't imagine it would be one which would be of any practical utility and certainly not one which could be used in legislation.

Whatever 'gender identity' is, it's a property of the mind. Are there any properties of the mind which are not the product of both nurture and nature? Individuals may have inherent predispositions ('nature') but how these develop and emerge will depend on 'nurture' - physical and societal factors.

MsBeaujangles, that attempt fails because it assumes that everyone has a gender identity. You can't sort by a thing that not everyone has.

So, sorting by sex, you'd have a heap of male cards, and a heap of female cards.

Sorting a different way, you'd have 'has/believes in gender identity', and another heap that says 'doesn't have a gender identity'. Then within the gender identity heap, you can have transwomen and cis women and transmen and cis men if you insist. Or as many combinations of sex and non-binary gender identity as you want to. But you can't assign the males and females in the don't believe heap using criteria for a heap they aren't in (by definition). Trying to insist they really are in that heap, just don't realise it??????

"Woman" is not a gender.

Lol

All

I have to do other stuff for a while, but I'll happily address any comments directed at me when I return.

DadJoke I couldn't make your link work so I tried this:
www.unfe.org/definitions/
Is this what you meant to link to? I don't see a definition of 'woman' here.

It is similar to sorting a pack of cards.
You can do this by colour, by suit or by rank.

Sorting by colour is like sorting by sex- red/black and female/male.
Sorting by suit produces sub categories - red (diamond, heart), black (spade, club) and female (not trans, trans), male (not trans, trans).

Once you start sorting by rank, discrimination by colour is irrelevant as the reds and the blacks are included. The same goes for sex when categorising/sorting by gender identity. It is far more trans inclusive to think of gender identities on a par with ranks than with colour or suit as this accommodates the many gender identities that exist without reference to sex.

For those that say TWAW, I think most are thinking of women like ranks, not as suits or colours. However, they often overlook how, when you sort by rank, the colour and suit are still present, just not attended to.

Sometimes I am happy to be ‘sorted by rank’. My rank would include males and females who do not identify as having a gender identity.

I am happy to be sorted by ‘colour’ and ‘suit’ when sex roles or sexed bodies are relevant to the context.

However, where sex roles or sexed bodies are irrelevant, I’d rather just be thought of as a Human!

Because it sounds like esoteric dualism, and while I respect your right to believe in it, I resent it's use in encroaching upon my sex based protections.

Yep, me too.

But a more modern definition certainly exists

"Modern" implies more progressive. It is not. There is no evidence that hurting women's rights to centre biological males is progress.

Peoplekind with potential to proliferate = 👩🏾

Good. Dad understands why he's wrong. This is a start.

Actually, sexual attraction can be objectively measured.
Some interesting studies have shown that many women are sexually attracted to other women despite having no conscious awareness of this.
Subjects wear internal probes in the vagina or devises that measure blood supply to the penis.

my definition is non-circular

See: fatal flaw above.

The only non-circular definition would be one that ascribed named qualities to a gender identity: nurturing, bravery, stubbornness, frivolity etc.

So there is sex-based oppression and gender based oppression

No, there isn't. There is sex-based oppression and gender is the means of that oppression.

Italics fail... Sorry everyone

If someone denies they have a sexuality, do they still have a sexuality?

Sexuality is a material fact even if it can't be seen. It is defined by physical attraction to/arousal by the opposite sex (heterosexuality), the same sex (homosexuality), neither sex (asexuality) or both sexes (bisexuality). This is an objective definition rooted in material reality. This objective definition does not rely on being visible by the naked eye to be rooted in material reality.

You are saying apples are the same as oranges.

I'll ask you again: what is a schnargle? Because in your religious belief system, woman has no more meaning than schnargle.

Ereshkigal

Most of the women I know professionally don't share the views expressed here; they accept the more modern definition of woman

You'll forgive me if I don't think you've conducted a particularly comprehensive survey in your obvious bubble. There is no "more modern definition of woman". Some people push ill thought through virtue signalling pomo nonsense which falls apart when asked to provide a non circular definition.

First, more modern does not mean more prevelant, and I didn't suggest that it did. But a more modern definition certainly exists - I've not made up the whole thing. I refer you to the [https://www.unfe.org/definitions/ UNFE} defintiions as a good example. That said, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I think most people would still accept your definition.

My definition up thread is non-circular.