Why is the definition of a woman so confusing these days?

[Fairenuff]

I know it's probably been done to death but it used to be so simple.

There were men and women. All kinds of different people but two sexes.

But now no-one can define what a woman is.

We know it's not clothes, hair or make-up
We're being told it's not having a vagina, periods or child bearing
It's nothing to do with the male/female brain

So what is it? Is it purely down to chromosones?

And if it is, how can people without female chromosones still say that they are a woman?

Okay, so the question I asked myself was "if you were obliged to define "women" but we're not allowed to resort to biology, how would you do it?"

But why would you not be allowed to resort to biology. Surely that's the obvious go to?

Can you define "women" without putting any restrictions on it?

"Given that women can make whatever choices they like and live any lifestyle they choose I would have to define them by what society places on them that is specific to their being women. So greater discrimination and underrepresentation in higher positions in the workplace. Greater scrutiny over appearance and a more sexualised norm of acceptable presentation. More likely to suffer violence and sexual assaults. Generally lower paid, achievements less recognised or celebrated etc."

So how would this encompass women, transwomen, but not people from ethnic minorities? Thank about what black men have to put up with. Paid less, more at risk of violence, frequently portrayed in the media in a hypersexualised way, less celebrated, less likely to be in politics... I'm ticking a hell of a lot of criteria off the list here.

If transwomen themselves would tell us what they think being a woman is, we might get to the bottom of it.

Well this is where I think the real problem is, isn't it. Understandably we (me included at various points) have been crying out for trans individuals to tell us in ways we can understand, words and feelings we can relate to, what it is that makes their experience "real". They haven't been able to do it to anyone's satisfaction it would seem. At first I found that deeply problematic. But since then I've been forced to wonder whether or not me and my rational mind have the right to deem someone else's lived experience as "not what they thought it was" just because they can't satisfy my need to understand it. I mean I've been through things in life - many of us have - that I couldn't possibly explain to the satisfaction of everyone. Thankfully those experiences don't compel me to seek acceptance from others for them; thankfully, because I'd be stuffed! But that's the predicament trans people are in. And I don't know, I've seen a lot of pain and a lot of passion from the trans people I've known. They really are invested in the reality of their experience. I'm inclined to back that I think - I don't know - it's complicated.

But why would you not be allowed to resort to biology. Surely that's the obvious go to?

Yeah, but then there's this group of people telling me that it isn't sufficient; that they aren't biologically men or women, but are indeed men or women. So I'm seeing if there's an alternative, you know, giving it the benefit of the doubt.

Given that women can make whatever choices they like and live any lifestyle they choose I would have to define them by what society places on them that is specific to their being women. So greater discrimination and underrepresentation in higher positions in the workplace. Greater scrutiny over appearance and a more sexualised norm of acceptable presentation. More likely to suffer violence and sexual assaults. Generally lower paid, achievements less recognised or celebrated etc.

So “women” is synonymous with “the opressed”? Is this what transwomen mean when they say they feel like women?

I note you have left out “most likely to be expected to perform a physical and emotional caring role and most likely to do domestic labour”. I wonder why.

I'm ticking a hell of a lot of criteria off the list here.

"The list" was just intended as a ball-park of sorts.

By the way, I'm really glad people are up for discussing this with me as I've felt so far removed from the points of view expressed in some of the trans threads that I haven't known how to start raising my concerns... so here I am, having bailed in clumsily, but I really am interested in understanding the debate and finding out where I sit in relation to other feminists.

Gah - typo - oppressed.

greater discrimination and underrepresentation in higher positions in the workplace. Greater scrutiny over appearance and a more sexualised norm of acceptable presentation. More likely to suffer violence and sexual assaults. Generally lower paid, achievements less recognised or celebrated etc.

Greater than what? More likely than what?

We can only say that women are more likely than men to suffer sexual assault because we can identify women and men as a class and look at the number of recorded instances of sexual assault against them.

How would you do this on an individual level? How would I know I am more likely to be sexually assaulted than someone else if the likelihood is based on the likelihood itself????

I honestly think if I read the words "lived experience" one more time, I might do something foolish.

It's not complicated.

Some people have body dysmorphia and find the only way to ease distress is by drastic medical and surgical intervention. It's good that their distress has been eased and their lives should be free of discrimination and given full social acceptance - but they have not changed sex.

Some people are paraphiliacs. They're welcome to indulge their paraphilia in private and in public in socially acceptable ways. But the expression of this paraphilia does not mean they have changed sex.

A body dysmorphic person has the lived experience of body dysmorphia.

A paraphiliac has the lived experience of paraphilia.

A woman has the lived experience of a female human being.

A man has the lived experience of a male human being.

I note you have left out “most likely to be expected to perform a physical and emotional caring role and most likely to do domestic labour”. I wonder why.

Genuinely no reason, other than in that moment I plucked things out of the air.

Is this what transwomen mean when they say they feel like women?

Well it isn't is it, clearly. But what I'm describing isn't the answer to "what it is to feel like a woman", but perhaps "what it is to be classed as a woman in society by society". I'm assuming the definition comes after the fact, and that the "being a woman" element of the whole thing is something perhaps intangible - certainly unexpressable - as no-one's managed to express it, despite being sure they can "feel" what it is.

they aren't biologically men or women, but are indeed men or women

Transwomen can say they are more or less biologically a woman after surgery but how can they say they have always been so.

They may have always 'felt' that they are a woman but they would not always have been treated by society as a woman.

Their experiences are no nearer being female than they are male. They are a separate experience and one that perhaps should be identified and owned rather than trying to claim a prior belonging which cannot be true unless it can be defined.

OMG nuff said

I know what you're trying to get at rat.

Some transwomen are utterly convicted in their assertion that they feel like a woman.

And they will use the tools their disposal to support that.

It's very interesting, to me, that before it kicked off politically, they would say that the reason they felt like women is because they wanted to dress in women's clothes, and wear make up, flick their hair, and be 'vibrant'.

Or

That they had an affinity with women, that they understood women better than men.

Subsequently, the former stereotypes were dropped like a hot potato, as soon as feminists pointed out that they were, indeed, stereotypes and used to disadvantage women and keep them in their gender box.

You have to remember that most of these men had no idea about feminism and the means by which women are disadvantaged/oppressed. It never occurred to them that gender was the reason.

So as soon as they got an inkling of feminist analysis, they dropped the stereotype reason.

So you're left with the affinity.

Which is nice. But is based, yet again, on stereotypes.

Women are more...

Women tend to...
I like women because...

Hence the actual lack of description now. You cannot get a transwoman to describe how they feel like a woman. It can't be done.

Then you get the men with gender dysphoria.

They quite openly admit that it is a rejection of masculinity that drives them.

Miranda Yardley's partner, a transwoman, wrote about it. I can't remember too much of it, but basically he grew up in a town where it was very laddish and he found the whole banter, sexism and misogyny abhorrent.

He couldn't conform to it, embrace it or even understand it.

So he defaulted to womanhood to avoid it.

He didn't feel like a woman. But he damn well knew he didn't feel like a man. Or these highly stereotypically masculine men.

Because gender is as damaging to men as it is to women.

You've only got to look at the transwomen who post on here in support of women.

They know they are men. They are decent men. They want to present as, and be treated as, women

But, to a man/'woman' their eyes have been opened simply by talking to the actual women on mumsnet.

Whilst they were attending to the means by which their gender dysphoria could be alleviated, they were simply completely unaware of what it does actually mean to be a woman.

And, because they have listened, they now get it.

Women don't have to listen to understand what it means to be a woman.

The transwomen, here, have become allies. Not because they live as a woman. They don't. Because before they spoke to women, they didn't understand.

It's rare that men listen to women, even men who think they are women.

But when they do, they generally get it. Not because they are women, but because they are logical and decent.

I feel very sorry for men who reject their masculinity to the point of illness. Feminism can help them with that.

What it can't do is actually give them experience of being a woman.

It's not possible. It's not possible in terms of biological examples and it's not possible in terms of the way we are treated.

If you could, actually, sort out the transsexuals from the AGP individuals. And then take out the thoroughly decent, feminist allies from the transsexuals. You might have a chance of satisfying both sides.

But it would be a vanishingly small number of men.

And I'm not prepared to sacrifice the word woman for a few hundred men.

It's not about reclaiming a word.

It's not about giving up some hard-won privilege to a group who haven't 'earned it'.

It's about allowing the patriarchy to divide us once again. Letting fear and anger dictate how we feel. Letting one big, strong group of us be divided into many small, self-righteous ones.

We are better than this.

Excellent post Datun as per usual.

Not wanting to lower the tone; I find it ironic that, from what we've seen, the person in CBB with the most precise understanding of feminism, is Shane/ Courtney. Almost as if he worked out that he rejected masculinity/ enjoyed 'feminine' things and yet found he could do that with no shame that forced him to physically change his body.

Perhaps the career choice allowed that acceptance, as its (according to society) ok to be a performer rejecting masculinity, at the same time something was subtly different in him - a self love or acceptance that the dysphoric lack (and I refer to anyone with a body dysphoria there- looks, anorexia etc. I experienced extreme dysphoria about my looks when younger and I can pin point what led to that view of my face from around the age of 7 onwards.)

Imo, things are being made more confusing as a strategy to drive people further to the right, as they believe at least they know where they stand and it provides familiarity, order and stability.
Breaking society to take control isn't a new strategy, and it never ends well.

You're absolutely right Datun, not only in that noone is ever going to be able to say what it means to be a woman (perhaps it's different for every woman), but also that there are many highly questionable individuals associating with trans who make things more difficult for everybody. I suspect those individuals are dicks in all aspects of their lives though. What I don't understand though is that you "aren't prepared to sacrifice the word for a few hundred men", as if the word itself were somehow sacred and that would be some huge sacrifice. I understand there is a lot of "sharing" with transwomen that one could take issue with, but is the word really the most problematic of those to share?

I'll have another stab at the man and woman definitions if you like. How about...

Man: adult human, male or identifies as such.

Woman: adult human, female or identifies as such.

Would that work? I know it doesn't satisfy anyone who's determined to ask "but what does that mean??", but I think accepting that question is impossible to answer is the inevitable Then why not allow such definitions?

I think the issue with the word identify is that it's imaginary and non concrete. The world, in actual life, revolves around concrete issues. Political theory is about ideas that have real concrete impact on actual people or the environment.

I don't understand why you are tying yourself in knots trying to come up with a definition for woman that does not include biology. We already have a perfectly good, scientific definition of woman. Adult human female. What is the point in trying to come up with another definition?

I know that some trans activists are very heavily invested in changing the definition to include their feelings, and it might hurt them deeply. Some religious cults are heavily invested in the fact that it will soon be the End of Days. They are 100% convinced that the end of days is coming - they really do believe it, despite the lack of evidence because they believe their own 'evidence'. However, governments across the world don't start telling their populace to prepare for the End of Days do they - because they know that despite the particular religious cult's beliefs, it's not true. Those people may have their feelings hurt by that, but there isn't really a viable alternative.

RatRolyPoly

I'm not talking about the word on a linguistic basis. As in, it's mine, you can't have it.

It's about the concept.

The transwomen who are making a fuss about this aren't really after the word at all. They are after the concept.

They dub us cis women.

But as soon as (some) people are applying the word cis woman to mean a natal woman, trans-activists are now calling themselves cis women. It's the concept, not the word.

Women must have a word to describe themselves. Women's rights, any women's rights, are reliant on describing the humans to which they apply.

Women's rights don't apply to men.

They don't need maternity leave, or breastfeeding protocols. They don't need to access gynaecological services. They don't require an abortion. They don't need equal pay law.

And they know this.

So the only 'rights' that they actually want, which they feel they can legitimately ask for, are the ones that don't involve their biology.

Toilets, locker rooms, feminism, representing women.

Because it's about validating their womanhood. But their claim to womanhood completely omits 90% of what it means to be an actual woman.

So I'm not prepared to agree that some, fairly superficial, parts of what it means to be a woman, can define what it means to be a woman.

That's the logic.

But it goes beyond that. As we all know.

Because, the 90% of womanhood that they do not have access to, due to not having the requisite biology, gets minimised by them and termed exclusionary.

And the 10% that they could have access to (feminism, private spaces), gets maximised. They hijack feminism to talk about what it means to them. And they are basing that on the 90% of things that matter to them, not women.

They make a big song and dance about toilets and locker rooms, changing rooms. Not wanting a third space. Insisting on the women's space. Again, making it all about them and their validation.

So when I say I'm not prepared to give up the word woman, i'm certainly not prepared to give it up to the men I have described. And the only people who might legitimately have a claim, the decent transsexuals, frankly aren't that bothered about it.

And finally, why should I? Because the only people who will gain from it are the men I have described.

I'm not sure I've explained it very well. Because, for me, it's just duh, no.

And explaining why I have that reaction will involve talking about men as a class, women as a class, why and how women are oppressed and why men do the oppressing and how.

I don't understand why you are tying yourself in knots trying to come up with a definition for woman that does not include biology

I guess the answer must simply be that I'm prepared to believe those that tell me the definition does not hinge on biology. You know, what if they're right?

So would you believe the 'end of days' people and say goodbye to your loved ones? What if, despite no evidence whatsoever, they're right?

But Datun has just explained all the practical consequences of not having a word for women. Abortion services, equal pay, breast-feeding - no longer women's issues. Private spaces, the right to decide for yourself who gets to see your body (locker rooms), who gets to touch your body (HCPs) - all gone.

Why would you want to do this on the basis of being nice to people who believe something self-evidently crazy? Do you feel the same way about people who assert the world is flat, the moon landings were faked, climate science is a hoax?

You know, what if they're right?

If they were right, they would be able to give you an objective definition of "woman" under which they fell, and you would be able to run straight over here and give it to us.

Since they can't and you can't, we can be pretty sure they are not right.

Roly, if you want to be an adherent to the genderist religion, why don't you just say so? You can if you want. Because you know, as well as we know, that it's a matter of faith. Just out yourself as a genderist religionist. At least it's honest.

I'm an atheist. So I don't believe human beings have souls, gendered or otherwise.

So, Rat, to use your definitions:

"Man: adult human, male or identifies as such" = "adult human male or any other person"

"Woman: adult human, female or identifies as such" = "adult human female or any other person"

What is the difference between "man" and "woman" using your definitions?

Genuine question, by the way. I'm really trying to understand your reasoning.