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?

And the reason I'm trying to understand your reasoning is to understand whether you want to get rid of sex-segregation altogether which is a position that, while I don't agree with it, actually is a legitimate position.

So, for example, to compete in women's sports you have to be a woman, an adult human female, or any other person who wants to compete as a woman? Why have women's sport so, why not just one category open to adult human females or males or any other person?

You know, what if they're right?

The only think this makes me think of sadly is the flat earthers.

Roly, I'm really appreciative of your engagement in debate. And I think it's good to keep asking the provocative questions.

The same applies to women's prisons.

If women's prisons are for women or any other person, why have women's prisons at all? Why not have everyone in one prison? I can't see any problems with that at all

Sorry, I'm thinking as I type.

If your definitions are correct, RatRolyPoly, and the new definitions are right, then there is no need for any sex-based segretation at all. No reason for keeping figures for the different sexes such as crime stats (both victim and perpetrator), poverty stats, sports records, representation in business and politics figures; all that type of thing is no longer necessary because the definition of "woman" includes "men" and the definition of "men" includes "women".

Isn't that setting back the feminist movement a hundred years or so?

rat

You've got two things going on here.

An intellectual exercise on how we can redefine the word woman to include some men.

And how it actually plays out in real life.

Can I suggest that you take some time to maybe engage with what transactivists are actually saying?

Because this intellectual exercise has real life consequences.

You can't leave those consequences out of the equation.

This isn't a benign set of men who are asking nicely for something.

This is a highly organised movement. Involving things like 'strategic litigation'.

A cross-media agenda to silence women not only for their objection, but over their rights that relate to their biology.

You can't find someone for being pregnant, for instance. Because that would be sex discrimination, based on a woman's sex. But if suddenly 'men' (transmen, legally men) can be pregnant you cannot invoke that law.

I don't actually know how that would play out in real life, in court.

I do know that it played out in Canada and although the case ultimately wasn't decided on that basis, the lawyers said it could have been.

Believe me, this is what strategic litigation means. Twisting the law to set a precedent that will allow men to dominate women.

It's already happening in terms of sport, mixed accommodation for children, women's spaces being colonised.

• An intellectual exercise on how we can redefine the word woman to include some men.

And how it actually plays out in real life.*

Exactly. Imaginary theory v concrete real life consequences.

Yes, the real problem is that in order to widen the definition to include "some men" - those who "identify" as women - in reality the definition of woman has to include all men, simply because there is no way of proving which men identify as women.

"woman" will therefore mean "adult human".

The only think this makes me think of sadly is the flat earthers.

Sorry, got the floorboards up and investigating a patch of damp in the hallway so can't pick up on all the things that have piqued my interest in this debate (but I will when the baby's asleep and the floor's back down!), but I'll pick up on this because I was thinking of flat-earthers this morning...

I was thinking not all that many people saw evidence of the world being round. Hardly anyone got to sail round it, or had an experienced something which evidenced its being round. It had always been flat, perhaps the definition even included the notion of its flatness. If it wasn't flat it was going to take an awful lot of effort to sort out how that worked with astronomy, scientific theory, and all the bloody maps would have to be redrawn! ...but it was round. And the few people who had experienced it were right. And perhaps those for whom it had always been flat never did believe them, not even at the end.

Similarly is it possible to be born gay? The majority used to say no. A few said "well I was".

Anyway, I can't stress enough how i GENUINELY do not have a set position in this, I'm just currently at the point of saying "yeah okay, could be true". I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt for the time being, and just exploring how that might pan out.

Back to the floor then will read more!

You can see how it pans out in Canada, where a politician is calling for a woman to be prosecuted for hate speech for saying biology is real. Thats how it pans out.

It's worth reading that long multi threaded twitter conversation. MTT and VP for British Columbia for the Canadian NDP party Morgane Oger is calling for a woman who was pictured holding a sign saying "transwomen are men" to be taken to a Human Rights Tribunal. It's chilling.

RatRolyPoly, I'd really like to hear your take on whether sex segregation should be completely done away with (sport, changing rooms, prisons, support groups, refuges, etc etc). If not how do you include "anyone who identifies as a woman" in sex-segregated women's spaces, but exclude "men"?

If you don't exclude any man who wants to be included, what's the point of women's spaces?

I have a certain amount of respect for anyone who says "get rid of all women's spaces, get rid of segregation, get rid of categorisation by sex/gender completely". I don't agree with it, but it at least makes sense as a stance.

Believe me, this is what strategic litigation means. Twisting the law to set a precedent that will allow men to dominate women.

Just popping in to clarify - 'strategic litigation' is in itself neutral. It's bringing a test case to clarify the law or change the way in which the law is interpreted.

I don't think the breastfeeding case was strategic litigation - the case was brought by the woman who had been discriminated against. It was the company's defence lawyers who argued that men can breastfeed too so it therefore wasn't sex discrimination.

The TIM who sued Vancouver Rape Relief for not letting him volunteer as a counsellor was strategic litigation. Lovely Lily's pro-boner letter to the school to get them to let Lily use the girls' facilities was the first step towards strategic litigation.

But - the crowdfunder to challenge the Labour party on AWS is also strategic litigation, as would be a case brought by a parent who wasn't told their DD would be sharing a tent with a male child at guide camp.

A neutral example of strategic litigation, away from the gender clusterfuck, is Doug Pauley's action against the bus company to ensure wheelchair users got to use the designated spaces they fought for. This is a good example of how strategic litigation works (i.e. why it's 'strategic') - Pauley took ONE bus company to court. The result was that ALL bus companies clarified and strengthened the rules.

As you were

Pro-boner 😂 😂

That's really what this is all about at the end of the day

PencilsInSpace

Thanks for clarifying.

I had never heard the term before I read about it being used by transactivist organisations.

I can't remember exactly who was using it, but they were lawyers.

I took it to mean that it would be used as some kind of test case to set precedent?

So not necessarily to address an injustice, but to use a tactic for subsequent cases.

Which I'm sure is quite a usual practice.

The fact that I first heard in relation to the trans issue was what was slightly chilling, for me.

It made me realise that this isn't confined to individuals. There is organisation and money behind it.

Who are hiring professionals.

Yes I think I remember that Datun, it was that quote about them changing lots of things quietly, behind the scenes, wasn't it?

Strategic litigation is a tool and one I don't think we should be frightened of using. I found this guide but haven't had time to read through it yet. It focuses on challenging decisions by public bodies through judicial review.

But now no-one can define what a woman is

You're not helping by repeatiing this nonsense you know. I can define a woman, easily. So can you. We all can. Adult human female, xx chromosomes, vagina etc. It's couldn't be simpler.

Just because the lunatics are running the asylum and keep screaming at us that women can have penises and sex is whatever you want it to be, it doesn't mean we have to agree with such crap.

Defining what a woman is is easy, but exactly what a transwoman is seems to be a 'spectrum' and a moving target, so you can't really come up with a wider definition of a woman that includes them at all times and in all ways (or even sometimes in some ways) that does not include men.

Rat the reason advancement for homosexuals is different is that, whilst some people found it distasteful/wrong, it dodn't actually impact upon anybody else.

Plus a person can categorically say "I find men/women/both sexually attractive and arousing". Yes it is a feeling, but they only speak for themselves in terms of "this person arouses me sexually but that person doesn't".

This is different because despite all the many men who claim to feel like a woman, not a single one of them can explain what that means in a way that any single woman can say "ah yes, that is definitely womanliness" because 'woman' isn't a feeling; it's a biological descriptor.

It does nothing more than explain the physical/hormonal/biological class of a person. It does not describe in any way how they feel. Given that a man cannot pissibly fall into that class, then theycanot be a woman.

They might like to 'dress up like a woman' or 'pretend to be a woman', but they are not, and can never be, women.

I understand your point rat, it's just I'm thinking of the flat earthers today that regularly get Brian Cox's goat going.

I do know how plastic the brain is in the first three years of life though and how much they pick up from a very young age; my son was well aware he couldn't breast feed his toys as he was a boy (so gave them to me) at the age of 2.5.

However, the brains of healthy babies are equal between the sexes at birth.

There is a lot of science there for us, concrete facts and evidence.

There are two huge rapid phases of brain organisation in life; the first between 0-3 and the second at puberty.

Damage done in terms of attachment in the early years can sometimes be undone during puberty with the right input.

It stands to reason other things happen during those times that lead to the shaping of a young person and adult. And the brain is still developing in an adult up to age 25.

(Severe abuse and attachment issues I may add, where physical changes in the infant's brain can be seen if they've been badly abused.)

Fascinating thread, especially the last pages. It would seem the place to direct those, including politicians, who haven't thought this through.

Rat, what does it mean to “identify” as an adult human female? And why are the categories of male and female the only social categories we can identify ourselves into? Why can’t I identify as 8 years old? More to the point...in what way does identifying as a female actually make someone a female?

Defining what a woman is is easy, but exactly what a transwoman is seems to be a 'spectrum' and a moving target, so you can't really come up with a wider definition of a woman that includes them at all times and in all ways (or even sometimes in some ways) that does not include men

Defining a transwoman is quite easy as well: its a man who lives as or wants to be or has had surgery to look like a woman.
There will never be an actual definition of woman that includes transwomen, because they are not women, no matter how loud they shout that they are.

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

There have been several posters on this thread who have defined what it means to be a woman. What it's always meant.

I'm prepared to believe those that tell me the definition does not hinge on biology

But you are not prepared to believe those that tell you the definition does hinge on biology? Why?

In my opinion, the definition has to hinge on biology. I can't say what 'women' as a group 'feel like'. No one can, which is why transwomen are struggling to explain that feeling.

Maybe it's more like 'I want to be a woman' but, again, not much explanation as to why.

Transwomen have no idea what it's like to be a woman. All they know is they feel 'not male'.

For all we know, there may be a third category of humankind which is either just evolving now or just being recognised and openly investigated now.

Why such a closed mind? Anyone who is open to the idea that males can become females purely by surgery must surely be open to other ideas too.

Just because the lunatics are running the asylum and keep screaming at us that women can have penises and sex is whatever you want it to be, it doesn't mean we have to agree with such crap

task we do have to be careful. I certainly couldn't voice something like that outloud at work for example even if I thought it privately. I don't know why it's got like this but it has. It's happening.