Conversation between two philosophers: what does it mean to be a man or a woman?

Just placemarking looking forward to reading this

Oh and he patronised me because: I disagreed with him, I was female, I was a mature student (single parent with children), and he knew damn well I was cleverer than him.

I think most philosophers are twats, but I might be biased, having been patronised by a particularly pompous one when I was doing a Maths degree and foolishly chose to do a philosophy module to enhance it. It didn’t enhance it.

• trans feminist philosopher, not trad feminist.

Thanks for link that was a v good exchange. I thought they both made good points - also interesting discussion on this thread thsnks.

I think this thread is being a bit unfair on the bloke (whose name I can't remember so I will call 'Not-holly' - in homage to the green party 'non men). I know it shouldn't need bravery, but it actually is quite brave to do this. Not-Holly's letters work from assumptions that are so far from the current trans inclusive humanities & HE orthodoxy that they wld be considered transphobic by every uni lgbt committee member.

It was interesting to see him make the point about gender identity sounding a lot like the soul. That's something gc feminists have been pointing out for the whole time I've been reading on this (2 and a half yrs?) but the trans activists and trans inclusive academics really dont accept it. I would like to see an exchange between him and a lib fem or trad feminist philosopher who really doesn't agree that gi is anything like a soul and could put forward a view of what it actually is.

He's also missed that there is no reciprocation within this.

In order for someone male to be able to do this, their belief that for them, their personal sense of 'woman' is something other than physical body and is about respecting instead a person's self stated inner sense of self and identity, and own choice of words for themselves, is intended to be of importance and value to everyone as a progressive, accepting society.

A female person however, sharing their belief in return that for them, their personal sense of 'woman' is entirely their physical body and nothing else as otherwise this is limiting them within stereotypes, and that they too wish to have their personal sense of identity and choice of words for themselves (adult human female, woman, biological female) respected..... is termed as 'hate'.

There cannot be equality in this; women cannot have the same choice, freedom of expression, sense of self and stated concepts. That equality apparently cannot coexist. There must instead be a division of people into the group who may name themselves, who may select their own sense of self and identity and have this respected and their boundaries honoured - and the group who will be named whether or not they agree or like it, who may not select for themselves, and are threatened for showing boundaries of their own.

Whether or not it is a comfortable truth: the group who are expected to respect and nurture others to their own detriment are the sex class to whom this oppressive stereotyping based on sex has always fallen.

Women don't have the luxury of treating this subject as purely a matter for academic discourse.

@DianasLasso yep you've nailed it.

I'm thoroughly enjoying the fact that a leading philosopher can be outargued by the women of Mumsnet.

Thanks for posting. Interested to have a look at this later on today.

One possible reason might be my sexual preferences. Perhaps I feel sexually attracted to men and not to women. But most men who feel sexually attracted to men do not think that this is because they are actually women. They are simply men who happen to be attracted to other men. So this cannot be it.

He's clueless.

bookmarking to remind self to read later

Preens - I used the colonialism metaphor on here donkeys years ago.

But yes Michael doesn't seem to be connecting the dots. Me being female is a contingent fact about my reproductive biology. In a perfect world it shouldn't matter to other people's views about my personhood and humanity.

But historically that contingent fact about my reproductive biology has been weaponised against me, used to define me as other and lesser.

So when some men, aided and abetted by some women, try to redefine "woman" to include "men" this is both an ontologically incorrect move and also a political landgrab which seeks to make the voices of the oppressor class the loudest ones within any political movement founded by and for the oppressed class.

The ontological mistake is annoying in its stupidity. (Like including blue eyed people in the class of brown eyed people, or hamsters in the class of birds).

But it matters deeply and profoundly, with huge real world consequences (free versus compelled speech, freedom of association, the human right to be incarcerated only after due process and only with members of your own sex, the continued existence of women's sports) because of the political aspects.

Interesting read.

If you are interested in the philosophical angle, I found this paper helpful: philpapers.org/rec/BYRAWA

Are women (simply) adult human females? Dictionaries suggest that they are. However, philosophers who have explicitly considered the question invariably answer no. This paper argues that they are wrong.

Hmm, I gave up after his initial letter. He’s a man because his body is naturally organised in a way that reflects and supports the physical, biological processes directed at the production of small gametes by that body. He seems to me to be significantly over complicating a simple biological fact.

I wonder if he had the aim of putting forward the arguments so that she could raze them? Maybe... We'd have to see/hear a spoken exchange for that I suppose

Yes. He sounds good, like he gets it, until a pesky woman has a different idea!

You really would think he'd immediatley see, and acknowledge, what she meant!

Yes, he expects to have the discussion on his terms. And he doesn't consider the political angle, so it's not relevant.

I would think a philosopher would be able to understand this asymmetry once it's pointed out. My boyfriend had the same misconception and once I explained it he immediately got it. It's really not hard.

But instead of admitting he'd effed up he instead patronisingly says:
You look at things from a gender-political perspective, whereas I try to do so from a gender-metaphysical angle.

I.e. "I'm trying to do big, clever philosophy here, not get involved in pedestrian gender politics"

Whatever dude!

Men by the fact of being men have the ability to not be affected by or even notice much of the experience of being women. Which is why so many of the things women are saying about the experience of being female, the language needed, the space away from males, the safety and privacy and dignity aspects - are treated with such utter contempt and dismissal. They don't affect men, so they can't really exist, it's just women being silly.

YY, exactly this.

Thank you for posting this OP.

It is the ongoing problem Holly points out: these issues are invisible to men, and so men assume they don't really exist and that there's symmetry between the experiences of the two sexes.

Men by the fact of being men have the ability to not be affected by or even notice much of the experience of being women. Which is why so many of the things women are saying about the experience of being female, the language needed, the space away from males, the safety and privacy and dignity aspects - are treated with such utter contempt and dismissal. They don't affect men, so they can't really exist, it's just women being silly.

See: Holly's comment about womanhood in the eyes of men being a conceptual terra nullis.