A Point of View on Radio 4 at 20.50 - What is a Woman?

No one ever seems to puzzle over what is a man.

The mantra “women should not be defined by their biology” has been disingenuously used over decades to minimise women’s voices in their own health care and to establish a work culture that is damaging to women in a number of ways, mostly by not acknowledging that they take on the largest share of domestic and parenting duties as well as paid work outside the home.
I remember being told by a “feminist” psychiatrist that my (later diagnosed) PMDD couldn’t in any way be caused by hormones because they were “natural” and that saying one was incapacitated in any way by one’s female body undermined the position of women in the workplace.

I fear a relapse into arguing that women are defined by their biology beyond the swimming pool or the cycling track or the locker room.

Deliberately framed this way to create a narrative which provides the opportunity to corrupt the feminist argument against biological essentialism. If only we were hat stupid!

Not complicated. No nuance required. I'm honestly completely SICK of people pretending otherwise and I have no time for such pathetic fence-sitters.

My biology doesn’t define me. I define it. I - and anyone else who shares the distinguishing attributes of my biology that mean I am not a camel or a raspberry - am an adult human female.

‘Without it, I fear a relapse into arguing that women are defined by their biology beyond the swimming pool or the cycling track or the locker room.’

Que?

I fear a relapse into arguing that women are defined by their biology beyond the swimming pool or the cycling track or the locker room.

There's probably a name for this logic error.

Woman is a biological category, so the definition and practical reality of women comes from biology.

Defining women by biology means women get to compete fairly in sports events that are for women. Or get given the correct healthcare etc.

This is considering a person's sex when it is relevant.

This is not remotely the same as sexist limiting women's options in life, which is where the phrase "I won't be defined by my biology" comes from. I that case the person's sex is being considered when it is completely irrelevant.

It never occurred to women that this phrase would be used against them as it never occurred to women that everyone would lose their minds and pretend they don't know what a woman is.

Was listening in the car. The part I heard was her considering different definitions of what a woman might be and none of them quite fitting the bill. Except they did, to my mind. E.g (not verbatim) ‘Someone with ovaries, or a womb - but what about if you’ve had them removed? Are you still a woman then?’ Sounded like a backwards step to me, but I only heard an extract.

The programme notes give an indication but if that's a good reflection of her thinking, it's not exactly illuminating or persuasive, even supposing the question had merit to begin with.

' "Zoe Strimpel asks the seemingly simple question 'what is a woman', but finds no simple answer as she explores the question through a brief history of feminist thought.

She explores the ongoing controversy over trans women in women's competitive sport, and the reluctance of public figures to define what a woman is. while revealing her own views on the issue.

"As the history of feminism itself makes clear, gender and sex are genuinely complicated. That overconfident or oversimplified definitions of woman - which apparently we're all supposed to be able to produce - can be limiting and crude. Not just in relation to trans women but biological women too," she writes.

She continues: "The bitter debate about trans women versus women is a debate about the meaning and realness of biology. And yes, biological difference matters, sometimes hugely. It is certainly real. But there is room for nuance: indeed, there is a necessity for it. Without it, I fear a relapse into arguing that women are defined by their biology beyond the swimming pool or the cycling track or the locker room." '

We have words and assertions that appear to be saying something meaningful but don't actually make a lot of sense. As I'm not on iPlayer I can't listen to it to see whether it takes on any better sense when you hear the whole thing.

Why is being a woman something complicated, something open to 'diverse views,' requiring dissection and seemingly hard to quantify, but being a man something straightforward and simple?

Zoe Strimpel asks the seemingly simple question 'what is a woman', but finds no simple answer as she explores the question through a brief history of feminist thought.

BIB put me off immediately. I haven't listened because of course the answer is simple and, frankly, I don't have time for all the fannying around.

Thanks for the heads up, I’ll have a listen tomorrow.

I thought Emma Barnett had already knocked down the wall and continues to dismantle it most weeks on Woman's Hour, after the execrable record of Jane Garvey et al in recent years.

I disagree with her, I don't think it's complicated at all.