Redefinition of 'Woman'

Boiling with fury.

Re: the Cambridge dictionary being unable to say what that foul abomination of a word ‘female’ means, this Zach Elliot video is very clear on how sex is defined and how sex is determined and why there are two sexes.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=4Dd8Ow8bA-Q

Good post.

And I’m also furious.

"But I agree with those who think that creating new terms would not work, because the goal of the GI ideology is to linguistically erase the female sex, so any new terms for that sex would be colonised in no time at all."

I think this is correct. Also, well, I am in the USA but I think something analogous is true everywhere where there are legal protections for women and girls: pre-existing legal protections were based on sex, whether implicitly or explicitly. That is, at the time they were presumably thought to be explicitly sex-based, back when the categories "woman" and "girl" were understood to refer to female-bodied people. So inventing new words for "woman" and "girl", while sex-based protections become delinked from sex, just ratifies the de facto erasure of sex-based protections for women and girls. If women achieve political victories in terms of getting legislation in that protects them, then I don't think it's right to allow those decisions, won fair and square in the political arena, to be negated by subsequent redefining of the meanings of the words.

Yes, Rose, that is the answer. The thread goes on:
Wait,” he said, pausing. “Is that an actual thing by the way?”

Here, I knew he was now willing to listen.

I went on to show that the sex of crocodiles was determined by the temperature their eggs incubated at. His interest piqued more

and,

Now, he wanted to know more about how other animals determined sex.

After providing him with a database showing thousands of unique sex determination mechanisms across species and how they all result in males and females, I returned to humans..

and,

I showed him that what matters in human sex determination is the genes within the chromosomes, that genes determine the reproductive anatomy you will develop, and thus, your sex.

To do this, I showed him the typical path for a human male and the path for an XX male.

and,

The XX male example illustrated to him that, even though this male had XX chromosomes, what mattered to his development was the presence of the SRY gene.

This showed him that chromosomes and sexes were separate things.

It was then he started to change his opinions.

and,

He told me: “I see. Sex is the manifestation of the genes rather than the chromosomes in and of themselves.”

I responded, “Exactly!”

This is how teaching should work, leading one through the logic so the person can reach the conclusion themselves

The thread continues but I can’t copy it all.

They've not redefined it, they've undefined it.
What use is a category of anyone who feels like joining the club? How can anyone continue to justify special rights for those that choose to sign a piece of paper? How can I even tell whether or not I am a woman in the new definition? It's the death knell for women's spaces or sports or rights existing at all.
Yes I'm furious.

You might have to scroll up the tread to find the crocodile part:

Zach Elliott
2 Dec
I had a discussion yesterday with an 18 year old male trans activist who thought atypical karyotypes like XXY were additional sexes

By asking one simple question, I was able to change his mind.

Here’s how 🤓
and,

“How do we know the sex of crocodiles?” I asked. “They don’t have sex chromosomes at all.”

With this question, I accomplished two things: 1) challenged his assumptions and 2) piqued his curiosity through an interesting example.

His response said it all.

Surely it'll be that crocodiles don't have sex chromosomes, because sex is determined by the temperature that the eggs develop in.

Re: crocodiles and chromosomes/what is sex?

Zach Elliott

In just one simple question about crocodiles, I was able to challenge his assumptions, pique his interest, and establish a foundational principle: that sex is defined independently of the mechanisms that determine it
mobile.twitter.com/gender_dissent/status/1453174521637138435/photo/1

aloris· Today 17:57
+What do you mean when you say that crocodiles don't have chromosomes? All cells need to store genetic information somewhere*

Is referring to a post of mine the other day? I read that on a scientist’s Twitter thread where they were explaining what sex is which someone had posted on a FWR thread about a week ago. I’ll see if O can find it again somehow as that would explain it more.

What do you mean when you say that crocodiles don't have chromosomes? All cells need to store genetic information somewhere.

Your last question is such a good one. I define myself as a woman because I inhabit a female body, because that affects my life both directly and indirectly, and because I have been discriminated, assaulted, and harassed for owning that body.

In the gender identity framework my identity (loosely described above) is entirely erased. If I complain about that I am the bigot. This is adding insult to injury.

But I agree with those who think that creating new terms would not work, because the goal of the GI ideology is to linguistically erase the female sex, so any new terms for that sex would be colonised in no time at all. The only stance is to state that 'woman' is a term which has already been taken.

All this is already happening, i.e., there are demands that 'mother' means anyone who identifies as one, and I have seen at least ten trans woman state online that they are adult female human beings.

The older meaning of 'mother' is now turned into 'gestational' or 'birthing' parent. I have not seen anything similar done to 'father'. No 'impregnating parent' written about anywhere in woke writings. I think Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (an American progressive politician) gave an interview where she used 'birthing parent' and 'father' in the same sentence, but I didn't see this myself.

Look up a petition
Take gender ideology out of the Cambridge dictionary | CitizenGO

You should see what they’ve written for female (while omitting the no 1 definition of being characterised by giving birth, having eggs, relatively larger gametes).

Warning: Do not buy or use this fake dictionary.

NO. Give them inch and they take a mile.

It might if boundaries are set before the definition was used. And also who it excludes.

Yeah! Cos that hasn't been done before, with the word 'woman' for example.

It wouldn't work. That last word would make it utterly untenable, bigotry, facsist etc.

You are assuming it being looked at from a logical position...

Exactly!!

I've just been watching Helen Joyce from the clip on the thread linked below

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4678427-another-helen-joyce-interview

and at 29.11 she says 'Do words describe reality or create reality?'

which made me think of this thread.

In answer to the OP - the word woman describes reality for me, so woman = adult human female.

Men who call themselves women want the word to create the illusion of their reality - if that makes sense? Or rather want to use the word woman to try to force everyone around them to see them as they wish to be seen by others, as if changing their label changes material reality.

The word woman is taken - if the men described above want to reject the label that describes them, that's for them to decide. But woman does not mean man or male in any circumstance.

Another point is they only want the word woman because it's ours. If we drop it they won't want it anymore.

TofuonToast I've had the same idea. They'd probably call it a 'dog whistle' though.

Some great posts. DameMaud's comment about ourselves and our boundaries resonates.
I think it starts with each of us strongly owning ourselves, our boundaries, It's those that do that are making the most headway in the fight- by joining with others in groups that then strengthen their identity, and then hopefully (if we can get past in fighting!) the larger group of women

We have such potential power when we work together. This whole ideology is built on sand - artifice and pretence - which is unsustainable. I can feel compassion - especially for the young - who've got caught up in this.
But facts and science will always prevail. Men will never give birth. And millions of women world wide will not accept being eradicated in favour of a fantasy.

Another interesting question is, what is the definition of Gender? Maya F points out that it's an unhelpful term because it means different things to different people.

I think it's useful to say that gender as it's being used today (stereotypes and 'feelings') isn't real, it's nebulous, it changes with time, culture, location and person.

I'd bet the majority of people still use the word as a synonym for sex.

Therefore only reality based language matters.

I saw the thread too and it was great, I think the takeaway is that it is your genes that determine which sex you will develop into. And there is an almost perfect match up of which chromosome you find which genes on but in very rare individuals the gene have hopped chromosomes. Those individuals are still sexed and their sex is caused by their genes. So I think as a general rule sex is determined by genes and which genes a person would have is almost always predicted by chromosomes but every now and again aren't where we would expect to find them.

Wellies post above crossed with mine and says what I mean at the end much more succinctly😄

Yes Catiette. I think you've articulated the importance of relatationship and the perception of others part in building a sense of self really well.

I do sense a corrosive effect - a genuine sense of loss - in, for example, no longer being certain that a “woman’s” achievement - or crime! - is, indeed, a reference to the class to which I belong, something in which to take a unique kind of personal pride or interest. And this is happening. Widely. We’re losing the security of living within a wider context of shared public understanding of who and what we are.

I think this probably reflects precisely the OP's question/concern in the post.

We can boundary and define ourselves strongly, as individuals and as part of the class of women as I said.
But yes, how do we hold onto that if that means nothing, or something different in the shared understanding?

We are right in the midst of battling for this now- and yes, it's deeply destabilising that we don't know how it's going to go.

To circle back to my points, I think it starts with each of us strongly owning ourselves, our boundaries, It's those that do that are making the most headway in the fight- by joining with others in groups that then strengthen their identity, and then hopefully (if we can get past in fighting!) the larger group of women.

(I know I was much more blurred, soft and doubtful of my right to assert at the start (slightly baulked at KJK's strong assertions)- female socialisation and all that. That's changed alot over thes years)

Part of the difficulty is that many women don't feel this way (the OP's first 2 groups). I don't know what impact/limitation that places on our ability to do what's needed.

Sorry. Stream of consciousness