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

MrsToddsShortcut on the theme of women having to make room to accommodate males:

"...the Democratic National Convention has repurposed several women’s bathrooms at the Wells Fargo Center to serve “all genders.”"

As a follow up (which I don't deserve after the last one! ), I will say, something that disturbs me is the way 'not a man' has become the default catch-all group.

I had a friend lecture me, quite seriously, about how 'not a man' is a great category to include, as transpeople and non-binary are included in it. She seemed utterly unaware that a transman might not love the idea of being forever defined as 'not a man'. But, of course, patriarchy loves it, having spent the past centuries honing the cultural definition of 'man' to exclude people of colour, homosexuals, and so on.

Amazing post robin

Thanks fela!

"IN fact they are totally invested in keeping things binary. Just changing the rules about which bit of the binary you belong on."

swiss that's the best summary I have heard

Brilliant post Robin. Highly logical women on this thread

Yy to

"IN fact they are totally invested in keeping things binary. Just changing the rules about which bit of the binary you belong on"

and

"I had a friend lecture me, quite seriously, about how 'not a man' is a great category to include, as transpeople and non-binary are included in it. She seemed utterly unaware that a transman might not love the idea of being forever defined as 'not a man'. But, of course, patriarchy loves it, having spent the past centuries honing the cultural definition of 'man' to exclude people of colour, homosexuals, and so on."

Think they sum up the whole thread, tbh :)

"anyone who defines as a woman is a woman"

Anybody who uses the above defintion I am very curious, do you apply the same logic to all words? Or all nouns? Or is it just the word "woman"?

Flora's definition on page 1 works for me.

WilLiAmHerschel I think it's just male and female, the premise being that language evolves - not that we can all randomly make up our own words! I've always been happy to say "she" for transwomen and "he" for transmen but I do understand the concerns around changing definitions like that.

So Jack, you were asked this and now you've asked us (having set out your rules for the thread which frankly I suspect would put most MNers' backs up on any normal thread, unless they were issued by MNHQ - but hey, we'll let that go):but are you any closer to knowing what you think yet?

I define as a turtle. A purple one.

Will - anything I call a sofa is a sofa...

Thanks, today.

Also agree with swiss's comments on patriarchy retaining the binary. I think this is key.

If you look at progress on trans issues, you see it at work. At the one extreme, Iran (!) seems happy with the idea of people transitioning, because it is so virulently opposed to homosexuality. God knows how that works for the people concerned. At the other extreme, you hear utter fury at the suggestion of unisex toilets - which would be great for people who genuinely don't know whether to go in the men's or the women's (an issue affecting not just non-binary people or people beginning to think about gender nonconformity, but also thousands of parents with small children!).

Jack, I just had a thought. Did you think that by posting this in FWR rather than say AIBU, you will only get a particular section of responses?

Vashta language does evolve but you can't force it to either. 99% of people have an image in their head of woman and that image is Danielle Muscato. And I'd say the vast majority of women don't want that definition to change, is it fair to let a minority (from an oppressor class) change the definition for the majority?

I think it's just male and female, the premise being that language evolves

In this case language hasn't naturally changed, it's been pushed heavily. And I'd say going from definitions that make sense to nonsensical ones is actually devolution.

*that image is not Danielle Muscato!

A woman is an adult human of the female sex (biological)
AND
who is perceived as a human of the female sex from birth (social)
There may be cases of women who are biologically male or intersex BUT who have been perceived as female since birth due to external appearance who are also women. Their existence doesn't invalidate the definition above.

Language evolves so that we say 'really' for 'very', or so that 'awesome' extends from its original meaning of 'provoking awe' into 'really good'. It doesn't evolve so that the actual meanings of nouns changes to encompass the opposite, usually. Otherwise how would we ever refer to anything?

Where are you going with this then?

I'm genuinely trying to understand my own discontent with my 'womanhood' and pinpoint it by exploring what a woman is and trying to work things out from there. I'm not here to talk about MtF trans people, or insist anyone is or isn't a woman, or the toilets/changing rooms debate. I'm interested in other peoples views about defining a woman, so I can understand my unease with it. I'm not here for a fight. I'm here to listen and explore and understand.

I identify as very rich. And I will throw a very large tantrum if the government, the banks and the people of society at large do not support me in this by handing over the money that they incorrectly think is exclusively theirs by right. They are literally murdering and erasing me by not allowing me full access to the money I identify with.

beyond I assumed it was because most of her beef seems to be with MN feminists and that they are the ones who disagree with her most.

I suspect though that she could ask it in any section of mn and she'd get "tits and fanny" as the general answer.

If man and woman mean "anyone who identifies as.." genuinely why do we have male and female anything? What is the point? Should we offer smears to everyone or just those who identify as female? If it's all about identifying and gender is a spectrum, why do people use puberty blockers and hormones and binders and surgery?

Arhhh fuck, just wrote out a really long post, then lost it.

XX makes a woman, the short of it