*@Whatiswrongwithmyknee
But an objective and factual definition of the word 'woman' is an adult human female:
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woman
That is one definition, which works in many contexts, but I don’t think it captures all of the ways in which people actually use and mean the word ‘woman’.*
The thing is, that it absolutely does capture how the vast majority of people use the word. There are always a few people who struggle to understand a concept. We don't change our language to fit in with their misunderstandings.
*It is not OK to change the definition to suit one's own purposes and especially it is then not OK to assume that others are using your definition. Gender ideology has not even made an attempt to define woman in any objective or factual way. If it does become, by majority vote, a word which no longer means 'adult human female' but rather means 'people who have internalised societal expectations related to physical characteristics expressed due to chromosomal make up' then there are not many 'women' in the world and we'd need to come up with a new term to describe 'adult human female', which is clearly more than a little ridiculous.
I didn’t attempt to offer any definition of ‘woman’ or ‘man’. I don’t think there are single, concrete definitions that cover all of the facets of those concepts (as is the case for many words and concepts). When I said I was using language objectively I meant I was avoiding using the terms we are arguing about (man, woman, female and male), and instead describing the underlying factual circumstances to avoid getting into issues about definitions.*
See above: woman to most means adult human female. There is no ambiguity whatsoever. Debates about sexist expectations are held separately to the very, very clear definition of 'woman'. Changing the definition of 'woman' just makes it much harder to notice and change those sexist assumptions.
Do you really think that there are not many women in the world who have internalised societal expectations about what it means to appear ‘feminine’ - do you know how much money is spent every year on cosmetics and cosmetic surgery by women (compared to that spent by men)?
Yes I absolutely do and I think it's worrying. If we have no word to describe an adult human female we will have no ability to notice that this is happening to men. People have usually not, however, internalised the stereotypes to the degree that they feel that calling themselves a woman means they are saying they are meek, just focused on appearance etc. As 100% of women are not doing this, it is also reasonable to suggest that not everyone who is a woman has internalised such stereotypes. It is wrong to suggest that being happy to be a she/her means that you have internalised these stereotypes.
*You say you want to be objective, but you don't seem to understand that you're not being objective. You are telling us about your own assumptions and you are naively assuming those are also other people's assumptions. The problem here is that you are not willing to accept that the ideas you have about why other people ask what sex a baby is may not be correct. This may be why you ask, but that does not mean that's the case for everyone else. The same principle applies to your explanation of why you are willing to call yourself a woman. You have internalised societal expectations even though you know they are a social construction. It's good to know your rationale here but it is completely at odds with mine. I am a woman as I am an adult human female and there is, literally, nothing else to that. I may have internalised some societal and other expectations, but some of those expectations which arose in my family, are not of the type traditional associated with females. So, for me, this process is irrelevant to my being a woman.
I wasn’t claiming to be objective - I honestly don’t think any of us is being objective on this subject! Just that I was using language in an objectively accurate way in that particular instance.*
In what way was your language objectively accurate? I don't mean to be rude but the posts of yours I've read, every time you talk about gender ideology are entirely subjective and I think inaccurately assuming a commonality of experience. I think it is objective to say that pronouns can only ever refer to biological sex as otherwise we will have to have a joint definition of what 'woman' means - something which could never, ever be achieved. In the absence of that consensus, using the pronouns 'she/her' becomes fraught with assumptions which people then make about your character, beliefs etc.
I should make clear that I am absolutely not someone who asks the sex of a baby in order to make assumptions about its personality or whether to buy pink or blue clothes. I ask the sex of the baby because it’s one of the few things to say once you’ve established the baby is healthy. And so that I can go out and buy the most gender non-conforming clothes and presents I can find for it. I am passionate about challenging gender-based assumptions and stereotypes, and often pull people up if they make generalisations about women or men, or girls and boys.
We agree on this.
*Your gender ideology is based on your own assumptions which I think are niche. That certainly seems to be the case on this thread. There is no research to prove that it's a niche view but there is also no research to suggest that the majority of people, specifically the majority of women, want to use the word 'woman' in an entirely different way to how we've been using it since the dawn of language. Such research is the kind of objective facts we need. Your call for objectivity is good. But trying to present your current argument as objective is far from helpful.
On the point about how terms have been used since the dawn of language - surely for much of the history of the word ‘woman’ it has been inexorably bound up with generally accepted (though obviously false) beliefs about the differences between men and women - in terms of capabilities, intelligence, personality and social roles. While I 100% agree that we should all fight to continue to break down those associations, I also think it’s naive to believe that the majority of people are using the words woman and man in a purely biological sense, free from that immense history of other meanings.*
Why do you think this has been the case since the dawn of time? I doubt that the modern assumptions about 'women' were made throughout all the 20,000 years of human existence and I do think it very possible that in our pre-history there was nothing like the level of sexist assumption made about women.
If we accept that the definition of 'woman' (if it is inexorably linked with assumptions about more than biological differences between men and women) changes every time there is a cultural change then, given that people relate to cultural change/ norms differently, there can be no commonality in the definition of woman. How then is it a useful word?
I can't 100% say that people are not using the word woman in purely biological terms but you can see from this thread that most people
commenting here are. I don't know anyone who would use that word in any other way but if they are, perhaps we should continue to try and break down those stereotypes rather than creating a context whereby women feel like to use the pronouns 'she/her' means that they are giving people permission to assume they are using the terms in non-biological ways. This is particularly uncomfortable given that there appear to be no pronouns for people who think differently than you to use. I can't state any preferred pronouns as - like you've demonstrated - there is a massive danger that people think that says something about my identity when it really doesn't. What pronouns should I prefer in this situation? I don't 'identify' with any, I don't feel 'comfortable' saying I am comfortable to be called she/ her or any other pronoun. I can't use them/ her as that suggests very binary thinking, which I feel is regressive and outdated. There is literally no pronoun that I can say I prefer as to do so suggests I think like you. I'm not criticizing your thinking but I am asking you to think about the position that pronoun stating actually puts many people in. Is there any way people can now say 'I'm happy to be called she/ her but only if you understand that this means I consider pronouns to solely be an expression of my biological sex and to say nothing about my identity which I believe is not significantly shaped by sex-based stereotypes?' I get that some people are also uncomfortable using the pronoun associated with their sex but that does not mean that the solution is to further embed stereotypes. I would like to help those people detach further from stereotypes and feel more free to just be them.