What Makes A Woman?

[MxJackMonroe]

Hi MNers,

A couple of days ago I did an informal webchat ...

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/2693127-Im-Jack-Monroe-Ask-me-anything

...and it seemed to go quite well. One of the questions that came up was 'What Is A Woman'?

I'm throwing this one open to the floor - as I am interested to hear your opinions on it.

Please try to not railroad the thread with trans-bashing; it is a wider question than that, so keep responses respectful please.

Jx

No magic eraser here Felascloak!

I think a lot of people (especially women) are already challenging the binary. I would be happier if more men would also reject sex and gender, but they benefit from it, so it's not surprising that they want to preserve their privilege.

How can we get rid of the binary and associated oppression when the language used to describe the oppression is being taken away from us because it's "transphobic"? (Serious question).

I think rejecting sex and gender binaries is not a very appealing project to those trans activists who want to reinforce the binary. So, for example, in my utopian future there will be no need to talk about a woman with a penis because the category of woman won't exist and having a penis will be irrelevant most of the time.

And I think this notion, that it is the recognition of women's bodies being different from men's bodies being the cause of sexism, that is causing so much distress in young people.

As if women walking around obviously having breasts, or breastfeeding, or having wide hips, or a pregnancy bump is the problem. As if women really tried to not draw attention to their bodies being different, the whole problem would go away.

Science is always conflated with people mentioning the material world on these threads, as if by mentioning people are exploiting female bodies, land and food supplies we're being too scientific. Power is about controlling the material world; stopping people from describing that world and their own bodies is just a clever way of denying what's happening.

I see it a bit differently. People use words like 'biology' and definitions like 'xx chromosomes' to define the idea of 'woman' and that's convenient because it fits into the system of knowledge we have developed to describe the world we live in. But this system of knowledge was developed primarily by men (not exclusively of course) and tends to support already accepted ideas, such as the idea of fundamental differences between men and women - differences that are used to oppress and exploit women.

Some feminists - Simone de Beauvoir, Shulamith Firestone, Monique Wittig, Judith Butler (and many others) have argued, in different ways, that this understanding of biological difference between men and women is the cause of historical and contemporary oppression of women. Understanding why and how we are oppressed is the key to bringing an end to oppression. Again, feminists differ about what to do about it... That's always the challenge, isn't it?

I'd never try to stop people describing the world, or their own bodies. But I'm certainly up for a discussion about how we know what we know, and what that means.

All words fit into the systems of knowledge we have developed to describe the world, and all systems of knowledge were developed mostly by men.

The idea that there are fundamental differences between men and women exists because the human race would die out if we were unaware of that difference. That is why it is an accepted idea.

It is often ignoring that women are different that causes women to die or become disadvantaged.

And if you are up for a discussion of how we know what we know, perhaps you could start by describing how farming is carried out, how we know what to do, and what we need to know in order to farm.

all systems of knowledge were developed mostly by men.

True. Except, perhaps, for feminism. I'm not anti-science, but I'm suspicious of any scientific knowledge being mobilised in support of structures that oppress women.

The idea that there are fundamental differences between men and women exists because the human race would die out if we were unaware of that difference.

I suspect that most species that reproduce sexually are not aware of sexual difference in the way that humans are, but sexual behaviour seems to be instinctive, and thus these species don't die out. Most species don't seem to have developed oppressive political systems based on perceived sexual difference.

And if you are up for a discussion of how we know what we know, perhaps you could start by describing how farming is carried out, how we know what to do, and what we need to know in order to farm.

I'd love a discussion on farming (I have family members who are farmers), but I'm not sure what you're looking for in this context. A feminist critique of agricultural practices? An anthropological account of how farming led to the exchange of women by men in the prehistoric period? Sorry, I'm not sure what point you're making.

Humans are not like most other species. Human can only understand the material world through culture. We have evolved to survive through using cultural understandings of the world. We rely on having a cultural understanding of many things, including sex.

I am not 'making a point.' I am not asking for a discussion. I am asking you to describe how people farm, what they need to know and how they know it. You know, the specifics of what they do with the plants and the animals.

I'm asking you that because I want you to attempt to engage in the kind of lives that most women actually live, working with material things, doing the work that sustains human existence on this planet. Because without that grounding, I don't think you can begin to talk about what categories of anything should and should not culturally exist.

And I think you are working up to a lecture that relies on making life into some kind of abstraction where all that matters is language, and where any time people mention actual living things, you're going to just respond with science, system of oppression blah de blah.

Don't lots of animals have gender roles based on sex? Lionesses do the hunting, male penguin's sit on eggs...etc Not sure if that line of thought helps us much.

I feel a bit squeamish at the idea of erasing the words 'men' and 'women'. Can't pinpoint exactly why, just feels a bit 1984 to lose basic language. Plus I think I am more hopeful that society can one day recognise that there are real physical differences between men and women, without automatically oppressing women.

I am not asking for a discussion.

That's very clear!

I am asking you to describe how people farm, what they need to know and how they know it. You know, the specifics of what they do with the plants and the animals.

If I thought for one second that anyone would actually read it, I'd definitely take you up on that. It would be much too long for an internet discussion board, although it would have some great pictures of chickens .

I'm asking you that because I want you to attempt to engage in the kind of lives that most women actually live, working with material things, doing the work that sustains human existence on this planet.

Are you suggesting that I don't engage with the kind of life that most women live? Why do you think that? Should all posters on this thread outline their conceptions of farming related activities to demonstrate that they are engaged with most women's lives? That could be interesting!

And I think you are working up to a lecture that relies on making life into some kind of abstraction where all that matters is language, and where any time people mention actual living things, you're going to just respond with science, system of oppression blah de blah.

I'm not sure where you're getting this from, and I'm pretty sure I've mentioned actual living things in previous posts. Do you think that making ad feminam attacks on people who disagree with you will help to advance the discussion of feminist theory that is the subject of the thread? It looks like a distraction to me.

I would read it.

I don't think everyone who wants to discuss this topic should explaining the basics of how humans survive such as farming.

I think that anyone who asserts that humans can survive without the category sex should explain the basics of how humans survive, because without explaining their understanding of those basics, any claim on what material categories should exist is simply an abstraction.

I don't think I am making any sort of attack. I do think when you say you want to talk about how people know what they know, you intend that discussion to be a series of abstractions. I'm happy to be proved wrong on that.

Jeopardy, hopefully we can start using our knowledge of sex to resolve this global problem:

www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/30/new-zealand-schoolgirls-skip-class-because-they-cant-afford-sanitary-items

But I think it is very slow progress.

Woah, I knew this is a problem in poverty stricken countries but I am surprised that so many women and girls are struggling in New Zealand! I wonder if they have the tampon tax over there.

But, yes that is exactly the kind of issue where we still need to be able to differentiate between the sexes.

Don't lots of animals have gender roles based on sex? Lionesses do the hunting, male penguin's sit on eggs...etc Not sure if that line of thought helps us much.

Yes, I think that line of thought is really interesting. Shulamith Firestone talked about the universality of sex differences in the animal kingdom, and saw technology as the means to set women free from the tyranny of reproduction. Her ideas seem quite extraordinary now. Well, actually they also seemed quite extraordinary in the 1970s. But her work made quite an impact. Although abolishing pregnancy doesn't seem likely (or desirable) in the near future.

I feel a bit squeamish at the idea of erasing the words 'men' and 'women'. Can't pinpoint exactly why, just feels a bit 1984 to lose basic language. Plus I think I am more hopeful that society can one day recognise that there are real physical differences between men and women, without automatically oppressing women.

I think what I lack is your hope for the future . But yes, it does seem inconceivable to lose words like men and women, since that's the world we live in. So I suppose the challenge is to figure out how to build a better society that we can imagine wanting to live in.

If it isn't women's bodies in particular that are the problem to be fixed, why would we be abolishing pregnancy?

Why don't we instead use technology to change bodies so that everyone has the ability to get pregnant?

Almond

Your suggestion that I am not engaged with most women's lives, your assertion that I was 'working up to a lecture', your expectation that you could predict my response, and that it would be, as you said, 'blad de blah' are all personal slurs rather than any real engagement with my position. That's why I said it was an ad feminam attack. And it wasn't the first you've made against me, even though I have made none against you.

Feel free to make as many personal slurs against me as you like (I won't engage with them further), but please bear in mind that it distracts from what is actually an important discussion with a variety of valid perspectives. Yours is very interesting and much more important that your annoyance at me.

I don't intend any of it as a personal attack.

I think it was clear in the content of the post that I want you to give an explanation that engages with the kind of lives that most women live.

I am asking that to be part of the content of what you are writing. It is not in any way an attack on who you are as a human being; it is a request about the content of your writing.

I also believe I have engaged with your position.

On Wednesday (so getting on for a week ago) you stated:

'We can reject sex as a category as easily as we can reject gender as a category.'

Shortly after that I asked you how we are going to carry out farming with no category of sex. I have since reworded that question several times with still no response on describing how you imagine farming will work.

Other people have asked you similar questions and sex education and health care.

You keep repeating that we don't need sex as a category, but you are not explaining how, in key areas of human activity, those activities will be carried out.

Could you explain?

Removing the meaning of the words woman and man, won't stop those with penises raping those with vaginas, it won't stop women getting pregnant and needing maternity leave etc etc

It will just remove the ability to organise, protect and provide for the people being raped and getting pregnant

I was pondering something else yesterday (having seen an article sharing by The Independent)...

Bisexual is the attraction to both sexes and is now said by some to be transphobic. So polysexual is created to be the non transphobic (attracted to all genders ...) equivalent.
So, when lesbian means female sex attracted to female sex, why has a 'non-transphobic' equivalent (attracted to female 'gender') not been introduced? As with 'woman' why does it involve hijacking the word that already exists and giving it a new meaning?

Is this what makes a woman? Have I finally found the answer?

my utopian future there will be no need to talk about a woman with a penis because the category of woman won't exist
This reminds me a bit if people who say they don't see race. It makes me uncomfortable. Will we still have "female" in your utopia or will that also be irrelevant?

Actually that makes me think of those male fantasies about germinating babies in artificial wombs so we no longer need women.

Men can become far more satisfactory women themselves. transsingleblog.wordpress.com/2016/04/25/make-love-with-transgender-females/

The only problem is, who is going to do the wifework?

This reminds me a bit if people who say they don't see race. It makes me uncomfortable. Will we still have "female" in your utopia or will that also be irrelevant?

I also don't like it when people say they can't see race. Obviously we don't live in utopia.

Rejecting sex is about rejecting descriptive categories that are designed to oppress women. Biological forms and functions, when not social products of patriarchy, are not inherently politically oppressive.

So in my utopia there can still be female biology but it will be politically irrelevant. It will not be the basis for subjugating or marginalising anyone. There can be biological and cultural diversity.

Of course, this utopia is in my imagination. It's not a reality. And it's not part of the theory I was talking about earlier re Beauvoir, Butler and others. It's just a bit of idle speculation about what the world could be like if we could be free of oppressive constructions of sex and gender. But I don't know if humans can construct a world free of political oppression.

Felascloak
Mind you if you can talk about a non-biological definition of woman that doesn't involve essences or stereotypes and includes aspects that define both women and transwomen but exclude men and trans men I'm all ears. I have never seen one so I think it's impossible. Good luck!

I'm not sure a single definition, along the lines of your specification, is needed or would be helpful. And no doubt any attempt would be crass and offensive.

almondpudding
If you're not directing a point at me, please do not put my not username at the top of the particular post, particularly when the straw man argument you are using is one most commonly used by apologists for child abuse, Fascicle.

It's pretty straightforward, almond: I quoted the part of your post (one sentence) that I was addressing. The other point to which you refer, and which you have attempted to grossly distort, was not directed at you.

AdjustableWench
Biological forms and functions, when not social products of patriarchy, are not inherently politically oppressive.

Not inherently politically oppressive but still with the potential to be oppressive, not optimal and often requiring medicalisation (menstruation, childbirth, menopause etc).

Well it is if you want to say "transwomen are women". Otherwise that just becomes totally meaningless. Unless we are replacing women with cis women and not having the term women at all. Which seems kinda pointless.