Continuation of Polypostwonder thread

I do acknowledge the biological definition. The word has multiple definitions within multiple contexts and one of them is applicable to my life. If another word existed, I'd probably have been culturally placed by that word, but there wasn't and isn't at this time.

I doubt my belief affects you personally or has an impact on the billions of other women in the world. I understand my belief is similar to that of other trans accepting women.

In that you are very very wrong.

Of course it affects the female half of humanity to change the definition of us from the simple reality of our sex to some sort of "social context" or exterior presentation.

It affects us firstly because it removes the recognition in language and law of what we are, and secondly because it turns us into something we are not.

Without the first we cannot share and cone to understand what is common in our experiences because of our sex and based on that understanding build the supports we need because of them.

As to the second, we've spent so much effort trying to get away from the idea that our bodies determine our minds or our worth, we are barely getting there even in supposedly progressive countries let alone what women have to deal with in Afghanistan or Brazil or Kenya, and here you are trying to push us right back into that box.

Dear God man, do you honestly not understand that?

Well, if you honestly did not know that before, you do now.

So if you dare to claim ever again that changing the name "women" to include men because of how they look, feel or their "social context" this post explaining it to you is here to link back to.

I am in the world as a woman and mother (and daughter, and niece and aunt...). It is where I belong. It is where others know I belong. I accept my placement within women. It does feel comfortable to me and I even find it empowering sometimes.

That you believe I invite sexism is beyond. You have no idea.

Adding one last response to @FlirtsWithRhinos

The implied suggestion that I adopt the identification of 'trans woman,' is unfair. 'Trans woman' has no cultural relevance to my life, other than to refer to a process I underwent that others undergo. It doesn't convey any cultural relevance. I'd go so far as to say no one understands 'trans woman' to even be a gender. Certainly not on FWR where 'man' is preferred and used liberally along with various motivations and characteristics that are assigned to trans people along the way.

If independent, why so crucial to se the same word? Why can you not simply allow that we do exist in ways you don't?

I don't name 'woman' in the sense that you are suggesting, it is used upon me.

Assuming you are a reliable narrator this is, I am sorry to say, bullshit.

You call yourself a women and IIRC a "mother".

You walk into women's spaces.

You say yourself you fear how your social circle would react if you were to now tell them, after all these years allowing them to call you a woman, you were actually born male.

By these actions you demonstrate that you absolutely do knowingly choose to take and enjoy taking the word "woman" for yourself. You choose not to tell others who mistakenly believe you are a woman that they are wrong because it is your belief that you are a woman.

So please, don't insult me with pretending this just happened to you as if you do not have a voice to speak the truth.

You choose what to accept and what to not accept, and in doing so make yourself culpable for the sexism you choose to embrace.

I very much doubt that. Evidence please.

I'll also add that as much as gender critical people hold as sacrosanct the biologically restrictive definitions of 'woman' and 'man,' many more people conceptually understand the words to be just as socially relevant as sexually.

I'd go as far as say I believe a larger percentage of the population (than gender critical-identified people) believe that the social definition of sex (maybe gender?) can be independent of the sex-based definition.

Your beliefs are strongly held and I recognise this.

I acknowledge the weight and relevance of biology you place into your belief in your definition of 'woman' and I assume 'man.'

I don't name 'woman' in the sense that you are suggesting, it is used upon me. I have no other culturally relevant word available to me that most accurately represents the cultural place I exist. The word has been used upon me since I transitioned decades ago. I see how the world also uses the word upon others and I recognise its use upon us. My access and place in the world is determined by the word as it has been since I was a teen. My life makes sense through the word. I don't control anyone's use of the word. I am not provided the opportunity to force anyone to use any other word. I am unable to find any example of how the use of the word upon me alters the use of the word upon you. Its use upon me does not prevent anyone else from using the word for you or any other woman. I have no control over their use of the word.

Expanding to my personal belief that 'woman' can also include some trans women. I acknowledge that this is also different than your belief, but I doubt my belief affects you personally or has an impact on the billions of other women in the world. I understand my belief is similar to that of other trans accepting women.

The FWR definition eliminates the social definition of woman that allows my life any descriptive sense.

Leaving aside the fact that despite your implication "the FWR" definition of women is a niche usage by a small group rarher than what "woman" or its equivalent in other languages has unproblematically meant in all cultures and throughout history.....

Your definition of woman does not allow my life and the lives of millions, billions, of other female humans any descriptive sense.

Some might say that your belief your need is greater than ours is somewhat presumptuous.

However, I won't even do that.

All I will do is point out that the incredibly easy solution to all this is to recognise the thing you name womanhood and the thing I name womanhood are clearly two different things so it doesn't make sense to try and use the same word for both of them.

And I'm sorry because I do appreciate you have an emotional attraction to the word "woman", but we have a practical need for it.

Our history is written under it. Our rights are written under it. Our understanding of what it is to be female is written under it

And we cannot stretch it to include transwomen's sense of self, or even their "social experiences", without utterly breaking its meaning to us.

So I'm sorry, I really am, but your need is not greater than ours and you don't get to redefine half of humanity as a "social context" just to soothe your own soul.

You are you. You don't need to stop being you. You just need to stop doing it under someone else's name.

In English, not Butler speak, please.

Discussion of my life requires context, not self-perception.

Sorry. I missed adding 'solely' between the words 'believe' and 'defining.'

I believe defining sex by biology cannot work

This is absurd.

No, the biological definition of man. Which you are.

If your self perception as a woman depends on people seeing you as a woman, I don't see you as one. Therefore according to your own logic, you aren't one.

No, OK, edited to add... The other way is to say the word's evolved - but this faces the same issue again - geographical limits on that evolution, and the implicit assumption of the cultural superiority of those places and peoples enabling it (even given our shared recognition of "evolved"'s metaphorical use here, of language as social construct etc., it does begin to feel somewhat problematic in this context - confidence in the "objective" rightness of an "evolved understanding" can be used to justify a litany of wrongs...)

I don't believe it is a stretch to assume most people, anywhere, understand multiple meanings of the words 'woman' and 'man' (in whatever language) in discussion. It doesn't require a huge monumental context switch between meanings to occur, either. No one stops to consider the gametes.

The FWR definition eliminates the social definition of woman that allows my life any descriptive sense. On top of this, many FWR posters insist on replacing my very real experience with the social definition of man, which is deceptive and has no real meaning outside of this website.

To summarise: My 'objective' is actually my 'subjective'. Sorry for any confusion.

You're pretty clear here and elsewhere that your "trans-inclusive" definition stands - it's "objective" and ours is "subjective". You're also consistently clear that this is the basis on which you understand yourself to be a woman - you're seen as one by everyone else. Woman is, to paraphrase you elsewhere, socially/culturally constructed.

My use of 'objective' and 'subjective' above was in reference to my life as a woman, discussed on this website. It wasn't meant to be a 'trans-inclusive' definition.

I base my understanding about myself on my experiences, my socialisation, the way I am limited, the obstacles I've had to overcome, the way I am included. This is amongst knowing how I feel about my experiences and how my feelings and my experiences are shared with friends, relatives, colleagues—everyone I share a relationship with. This is consistent across every culture I've been in, in many countries. My experience and existence doesn't change at borders. That would be really weird.

Your "objective" feels like a weak point in the argument. Acknowledging fallibility - anticipating counter-arguments - often strengthens an argument (proverbs about willows bending in the wind or whatever). Certainty in the context of a claim about a word's meaning globally and throughout human history (and which has just been clarified in UK law and is the subject of heated national debate) does make the claim look a bit suspect.

I stated on the first page of this thread, I believe 'woman' can include trans women, but is not all-encompassing. I believe there is a very large social aspect to this, but it isn't just showing up. It isn't 'passing' or the clothing destination, which these discussions always return.

I don't believe my beliefs should be enforced any more than any others. I don't even think I can represent any specific boundaries around it, because I don't think about it. It might be a visceral reaction? It may be a rationalisation? It would definitely be case-by-case rather than a rule. It's definitely not a measurable quantity of 'something.'

I've also said that I believe defining sex by biology cannot work because 'woman' and 'man' have very social and cultural meanings that may not be the first definition, are understood to be relationship-based, social-role based, and identify-based. Denying the other uses serves to shut down discussion. For example, I've met more than a few trans men who told me how they struggled with men actually treating them like men. I'm assuming men aren't thinking about gametes here.

Do you really believe that, in a majority of countries and contexts now, and throughout human history, a woman dressed as a man and subsequently discovered to be female would be met with the reassuring cry of, "Oh, yes, he's definitely a man - he's wearing trousers, after all!" Take what example you will - the apocryphal Pope Joan, the girls who've disguised themselves as boys in wartime to protect themselves from rape only to be "uncovered"...

No.

Are you honestly saying that, for the entirety of human history and, indeed, across the world now, the discovery of what was beneath their clothes would be met with an immediate and ringing endorsement of their initial outward appearance and behaviour - of the first impression they created before the truth was revealed? "Oops, sorry, my lad. Off you go now!" or "What a man that pope was!"

No.

How does your (emphatically objective) definition hold up in this thought experiment, based on everything we know of human history?

Again, I wasn't using 'objective' and 'subjective' this way, but let's go with this...

Until modern medicine, the biology of sex was only 100% accurate when babies were born. Everything else was an assumption based on the beliefs and assumptions of who a woman or man looked like.

Today, cultures socially group men and women separately. This is largely biology-based, but not completely aligned with gender critical genetic beliefs.

So yes, there is some 'objective' and some 'subjective' in there, according to gender critical uses of sex-based definitions across human history to today.

OK, PPW, let's look at your conception of what a woman is.

You're pretty clear here and elsewhere that your "trans-inclusive" definition stands - it's "objective" and ours is "subjective". You're also consistently clear that this is the basis on which you understand yourself to be a woman - you're seen as one by everyone else. Woman is, to paraphrase you elsewhere, socially/culturally constructed.

Well...

Your "objective" feels like a weak point in the argument. Acknowledging fallibility - anticipating counter-arguments - often strengthens an argument (proverbs about willows bending in the wind or whatever). Certainty in the context of a claim about a word's meaning globally and throughout human history (and which has just been clarified in UK law and is the subject of heated national debate) does make the claim look a bit suspect.

But that aside,

Do you really believe that, in a majority of countries and contexts now, and throughout human history, a woman dressed as a man and subsequently discovered to be female would be met with the reassuring cry of, "Oh, yes, he's definitely a man - he's wearing trousers, after all!" Take what example you will - the apocryphal Pope Joan, the girls who've disguised themselves as boys in wartime to protect themselves from rape only to be "uncovered"... Are you honestly saying that, for the entirety of human history and, indeed, across the world now, the discovery of what was beneath their clothes would be met with an immediate and ringing endorsement of their initial outward appearance and behaviour - of the first impression they created before the truth was revealed? "Oops, sorry, my lad. Off you go now!" or "What a man that pope was!"

How does your (emphatically objective) definition hold up in this thought experiment, based on everything we know of human history?

"Woman" as being how we are received, socially, by a majority doesn't really seem to fit with the experience and understanding of 99.9% of humanity, if it's based exclusively on outward impression with no real substance behind that. (I mean, it doesn't even correspond with those oft-cited third genders in other cultures).

The only way I can see to reconcile your definition with this reality would be to say that the 99.9% who'd revise their understanding of "woman" to one of "man" the very second sex became apparent had (or have) inferior ethics or understanding to us. To 21st century western European society.

No, OK, edited to add... The other way is to say the word's evolved - but this faces the same issue again - geographical limits on that evolution, and the implicit assumption of the cultural superiority of those places and peoples enabling it (even given our shared recognition of "evolved"'s metaphorical use here, of language as social construct etc., it does begin to feel somewhat problematic in this context - confidence in the "objective" rightness of an "evolved understanding" can be used to justify a litany of wrongs...)

Well sure, I agree with you. I'm just saying you can't rely on the immutability of language, you have to keep insisting on the point.

So if 'woman' has a new meaning, what is it and how is this new meaning relevant to law and policy? What word are we using to describe adult human females?

No we don’t deny their status as an identifiable group. I fact, we are keen to be allowed to draw a line between trans women and women when our needs require this.

It is trans identified males who are desperate to prevent biological women from being allowed to identify ourselves as a group separate to trans women.

I hear you. But I don’t consider that example to be anywhere near the same as the monumental change as to making a word that is used constantly and is so important and rendering it effectively meaningless compared to the original purpose.

Do you think the population using left / right as a description of dichotomous relational position would accept changes that meant that left also meant right and vice versa on a full language change and a permanent one because one group decided that their freedom of belief had to be supported over others? How about if all north and south, east and west meanings included the opposite direction of travel as well because some group demanded their belief be the dominant one.