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

If we were able to stick to biological descriptors of our bodies while being allowed to act/feel as we wished without gender constraints, there would be no need to 'redefine' woman. It's the societal constructs and expectations around 'female/woman' that have been added to our biology that are problematic. And contribute to our continuing oppression because of our biology.

YES YES YES YES YES

But Jack you are doing the opposite of YES to that. You have described yourself as not entirely female and have said you are not a woman because you are gender non-conforming. When you were "A girl called Jack" you were breaking down gender boundaries and saying that as a woman you could have an infinite range of personalities. Now you are reinforcing them by saying because you are gender non-conforming you are not a woman.

It makes me sad because I think you agree with the gender critical feminist perspective. Although I don't know anything about your friendship group, I can see a lot of peer pressure on women to express empathy with trans people by affirming their views of gender or to view transgender as breaking boundaries. However the transgender view of gender only breaks boundaries by saying an individual can break out of their box and move to another box. It doesn't address the effect of the boundaries on women as a class and how to remove the boundaries for all women. In fact, it reinforces the boundaries by saying the boxes exist and are largely correct (cis) but some individuals are in the wrong box. Gender critical feminism looks to dismantle all boundaries to end the oppression of women (gender is a hierarchy, not a spectrum). This will also allow all women and men to express their personalities without having to deny fairly straightforward biological facts.

Mjingaxx, I think the trans lobby has been very effective at explaining normal disaffection with gender norms as "transgender".

Did you have a particularly "feminine" upbringing Jack? Not sure if I've phrased that right! But what I mean is you've spoken about your objections over having to wear dresses or attend a girls' school as a child - both of those things would have upset me too, however my parents saw no problem in me running around in trackie bottoms or jeans like my brother and are firm believers in co-ed schools. I never felt there was anything my brother was allowed to do that I wasn't. Or that I was made to do "girly" things that he didn't have to do. Other posters have said it already but it really feels to me like it's the social construct of femininity that you have a problem with, not the biological fact of being a woman.

As well as discomfort with imposed gender stereotypes; I sometimes feel confusion and disconnectedness at being a WC women moving in largely MC circles (predominantly professionally). It's something i often only recognise retrospectively. I don't know if that is something that resonates with you Jack?

XX chromosome.

A woman is, as stated many times in different ways, a biological fact, not something you can choose to identify as. I don't 'feel like' a woman, I am a woman.

I support the right of anyone to live, dress and behave as they wish (within reason obviously) but you can't argue with fact.

That said I am glad in many ways to be a 43 year old fairly worldly-wise woman. I agree with the posts upthread about the depressing over- sexualised stereotype that seems to be becoming normal the younger generation and can see why some might feel the need to seek an alternative.

Hi Jack

I think it's an extremely common experience for women to feel alienated from their own bodies at some point in their lives - perhaps for the whole of their lives in many cases - especially during and after pregnancy. And there is a spectrum of strength of alienation, ranging from women who shrug it off, all the way to those who feel the only way they can fix the feeling is to change their body.

But my analysis of the tortured relationships we have with our bodies is that it's the natural result of the way we are treated for simply having a female body. Why wouldn't we hate our bodies when they are the reason we are treated like shit? Why wouldn't we hate our bodies when we are told from birth that our personality or interests don't match our body, and that we're 'wrong' for having our own passions, ambitions or interests?

So I have some sympathy for women who want to escape this feeling and go to some lengths to do so. But we are all still women, still living in the same bodies. It's the world outside our bodies that needs to be fixed, not ourselves.

Hi Jack

I am just finishing my Masters in Gender Studies, and am currently writing my dissertation on this topic. The IOC (2016) policy is a key part of my research.

I don't want to say any more here, but please do PM me if you would like to read any of this research - I'd be happy to send you a copy once it's completed at the end of August.

wank the new statesman article is excellent

“It's not exactly a surprise that a website used predominantly by mothers, and mothers with feminist viewpoints, would refuse to buy into the idea that womanhood and the subsequent class oppression isn't intimately tied to our reproductive capabilities.”

And indeed, the very reason that many women discover or re-discover feminism, is because it’s when we become mothers that we first experience (or notice) real, deep-seated sexism. Because we are mothers and that means we are treated differently, than when we were not mothers.

Jack, you asked for feminist reading recommendations. I can’t recommend Delusions of Gender, by Cordelia Fine, too highly.

I think delusions of gender is a fantastic book. Angry-making but brilliant. I need to re-read it.

I need to RE read it too Bertie.

I hope this thread has been helpful to you Jack

There are some brilliant posts by some brilliant women.

I have read half the thread.

A woman cannot be scientifically proven. A woman is socially constructed idea of what the female is meant to look like and be. ( social construct of the female form)

Is the female form a different thing to a female person?

Because I'm pretty sure women are people not forms.

No quenched; a women is an adult female

FEMININE is the gender/social constructed idea of what women should be like

If you want to redefine a word, you at least have to offer an alternitive definition

Wtf quencher? I'm not a socially constructed form, I'm a human as is every other woman on the planet. I definitely exist and can be scientifically proven to fit into the sexclass women, as can 49.1% (roughly) of the worlds population.
Jesus. How rage inducing.

And 'girl' is a female child

I haven't RTFT but got far enough to see that Jack made the cheap shot of "But what about women who born without a vagina?". Sorry Jack, but expected more from you.

This and many similar threads would be avoided if only people had the habit of using dictionaries when they are in doubt about the meaning of a word. From any dictionary:

Woman = Adult human female, where...

Female = Of the sex that can bear young or make eggs.

It doesn't matter that some women's reproductive systems are faulty or that a few are born without vaginas. They are still of the sex that can make eggs or bear young (Female). That are not of the sex that can make sperm (Male).

Adult female chicken = Hen
Adult male chicken = Rooster

Adult female cattle = Cow
Adult male cattle = Bull

Adult female horse = Mare
Adult male horse = Stallion

And in exactly the same way and for the same reasons, since we are a sexually dimorphic species like all other mammals...

Adult human female = Woman
Adult human male = Man

"A woman cannot be scientifically proven"

Neither can a table, a toothbrush, or a bag.

That is because nouns are not hypotheses.

Because I'm pretty sure women are people not forms. The reason why I said form is because it's what we see with our eyes. This is for example what you wear and how you behave ( society socialises or teaches us to behave in a manner that society approve of). These characteristics is what constitutes what group you fall into, being a woman or male under gender. These characteristics are never constant. What you cannot change is person's sex. This biological.

I still stand by the woman being construct and the female being biological.

Thank you cote

Hang on it wasn't Delusions of Gender I was thinking of (though I also think it's a brilliant book) but "The Equality Illusion" by Cat Banyard. That's the angry-making but amazing one.

I think my "peak trans" moment, if you like, and I get that is a bit of a loaded term, but it was a throwaway comment by a transwoman that if she was walking alone at night and was ever threatened she would deepen her voice and revert to her previous, more masculine walking style and basically use her male body to intimidate her attacker and get herself out of the situation.

It just kind of made me crumple a bit. It's not the same situation as a woman who is very physically fit fighting off an attacker with self-defence techniques. It's not even the same situation as a physically slight man fearing assault. It's literally turning around and saying "Don't attack me. I'm not who you want. I'm not a woman really." It reminded me (yet again) that it is different to be female in our world and it's not something you can just turn on and off like an identity.

We don't choose this but we are oppressed for it. Femaleness is not an identity. It's not a burden or a blessing either, it just is. And we are treated differently because of it. It is 2016 and sexism is still sickeningly everywhere and mostly invisible. A lot of it is arbitrary but actually most of it is not and it can be traced down to a root of women being the child-carrying class. Regardless of whether we are fertile that is where it comes from. Patriarchy seeks to control women's sexuality because of the fear that we might become pregnant with the wrong man's child. Of course this is so far back in the depths of time that it seems ludicrous but you follow every sexist thing back and it comes down to either women being "destined" for the caring work which is not valued by our capitalist, patriarchial culture or it's about controlling women's sexuality and making it only on mens' terms. Honestly. Try it. (I probably sound insane.)

I don't have any problem with transgender ideology in theory. I am perfectly happy to use whatever pronouns somebody wants as long as I remember (I'm a bit forgetful). I don't care what people want to wear or do with their lives, subvert expectations. Great! I love the idea of anyone living any way they like as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else. I don't even mind particularly about some argument about toilets. Give me a cubicle and I'm happy enough. Most people, after all, are just trying to use the toilet.

Where I stumble is when I remember that women are oppressed and still need space away from the oppression of men. That doesn't stop me sharing my house with one but it does make me believe that sex-segregated space is still necessary. And why is it necessary? For no reason to do with gender, only sex. Which means that gender has absolutely no basis in a discussion about which sex-segregated space somebody has access to. Ask yourself why something is split and whether it is still necessary. Sometimes it is silly or outdated but sadly, in many situations it is necessary to split people by their sex. It's absolutely nothing to do with excluding people or making them feel less accepted. I'm perfectly happy to accept someone as who they say they are even if it's a bit confusing. On the other hand, there is no need to bend rules which exist for good reason in order to do that.

Female people are women whether or not they conform to socially constructed expectations. It is certainly possible to scientifically prove a person is female in more than 99% of cases.

Bum, I should have added one more bracket.

It reminded me (yet again) that it is different to be a woman and made me realise (for the first time) how it's not something you can turn on and off like an identity.

I still stand by the woman being construct and the female being biological

quencher you are behind the times. It is now considered transphobic to state that MTTs are not biologically female.