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?

The real question isn't really "what is the definition of woman?"

but rather
"what should we call all people who have their female biology in common?
and
"in whose interests is it to make it taboo to allow those people the right to discuss themselves or address the inequality they face as a specific group?"

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.

That doesn't have to be the case; anyone can try to hijack the feminist agenda with their own, and to a degree all women's experiences are valid to some extent, but why does that mean feminism will be "overrun"? Groups are still democratic; if someone is pulling something to their own agenda you just say "oy, I think we need to recentre this discussion on a more widespread issue for the moment, ta".

If they were right, they would be able to give you an objective definition of "woman" under which they fell

Well they are adult humans who are female or identify as such, so that one's covered, right?

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?

...any person who lives as a woman would compete as one I suppose, yes. I agree with segregated sport - men and women - but in my experience in sport is that everyone accepts the lines of segregation are a broad stroke. There will always (usually) be people at the time of your peak physical capability who have a natural physical advantage over you. You may achieve better than them through hard work and training, or they may do better than you with less hard work but with better luck. If you're born ten years later you may be the person with the most advantageous biology amongst your peers. Doesn't mean you'll be the best. This is the sports mentality that I'm familiar with, which is why I asked if there were really very many sportspeople up in arms about this. One or two maybe, but very many given how many sports there are played at however many levels across the globe? I just don't see them.

But yeah, if suddenly if there were millions of transpeople everywhere, competing in things left, right and centre, as numerous as non-trans athletes, transmen would likely be broadly disadvantaged and transwomen advantaged. So perhaps there would be a call for further segregation along different biological lines; but who knows what's in the future.

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.

Unfortunately many people called to arms as "transactivists" are a certain type of "extremist"; certainly some of the more vocal ones I imagine. They represent what could happen, what extreme lengths extreme individuals might go to, but extremism could always happen, under any status quo; it doesn't mean it's likely to happen, or that if it did we wouldn't be able to find a way to mitigate it at the time. I'm being nebulous, but are you following me?

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

What about if it said "homosexuality is unnatural" 50 years ago? I don't know this case, and I'm not personally offended by her sign (although it makes me wince, I don't know why), but surely we can put some faith in the justice system?

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.

You say that, but I remember the legacy of parents up in arms that a gay woman could go out and become a PE teacher; and what of their daughters in the changing rooms with her? Any homosexual could go out at any time and get a job which put them into contact with people of the same sex - in toilets, in changing rooms, in schools - and they could perve all over them at will. They could go out there, train for 5 years to be a teacher, get a job and PERVE all over your daughters in their PE lessons That uproar definitely happened. But in reality 99.9999999% of gay teachers became teachers because they wanted to teach, 99.9999999% of transwomen want to use women's bathrooms because they believe they are women, and 0.0000001% of the population are perverts whatever we do.

Rat, what does it mean to “identify” as an adult human female?

It probably doesn't mean the same to me as it does to you. The thing is, I don't find the fact that our feelings on the subject are different to be a problem. If I said that, to me, identifying as a woman means having long hair and liking the look of my legs in dresses, and you said it was knowing you have two x chromosomes, it doesn't mean either of us isn't a woman. So I don't think "what it means" - and that being universal - really matters as much as one might think.

Haven't proof read any of this, but gonna hit post and take my chances.

RatRolyPoly
Do you support women being sued for hate speech for saying men are not women?

I don't know anything about that UpstartCrow.

rat

IIf they were right, they would be able to give you an objective definition of "woman" under which they fell*

"Well they are adult humans who are female or identify as such, so that one's covered, right?"

No. Not covered. You don't appear to be reading what we are saying. The definition of women can't mean adult human female and any adult human male.

...any person who lives as a woman would compete as one I suppose

No such thing as 'living as a woman' unless you are one. I would be interested if you could describe living as a woman, without being one.

They represent what could happen, what extreme lengths extreme individuals might go to, but extremism could always happen, under any status quo; it doesn't mean it's likely to happen,

Yeah, laws should not be made on the basis that some people may not exploit them. Particularly if they are the kind of laws that are eminently exploitable. Which are being exploited. Over, and over.

Plus, your reference to homosexuality. It never ceases to amaze me how people invoke homosexuality as a reason to agree with transgenderism. When transgenderism directly undermines homosexuality and says that your sexual orientation is a preference, that can be changed.

That lesbians are bigoted for not disregarding their sexual orientation in favour of a man with a penis.

rat

I've givien you the benefit of the doubt because I think you're trying to understand. But I'm not sure if it's comprehension skills or just a dogged determination to not understand, but your posts aren't making any sense, given what we have already said.

It would seem the place to direct those, including politicians, who haven't thought this through.

whoputthecat I imagine there are a great many politicians who are considered not to have thought it through. Could it not be that they have taken a realistic approach to where they think this might go, as in where it's actually likely to go? Rather than thinking it through to it's most extreme conclusion which - let's face it - is hugely implausible. "Thinking things through" in that respect is also known as... catastrophising.

Rat my TL:DR version of your comments on women in sport would be "well, sport is all about some people having competitive advantage over others, and it just so happens transwomen will have a competitive advantage over women, but I'm perfectly cool with that, because all sport is about that."

Just go and google the difference in performance between males and females will you? Or read the "women in sport" thread in this section.

Your position is nothing short of an argument why women's sports should not exist at all.

Groups are still democratic; if someone is pulling something to their own agenda you just say "oy, I think we need to recentre this discussion on a more widespread issue for the moment, ta".

Try that in any mainstream feminist space when transgender issues have taken over discussion of women's issues, then come back and tell us how it went.

I don't know anything about that UpstartCrow.

You compared it below to a sign saying "homosexuality is unnatural", remember?

But I'm not sure if it's comprehension skills or just a dogged determination to not understand, but your posts aren't making any sense, given what we have already said.

It's not that I fail to comprehend, it's that I demonstably disagree with what has already been said - or rather, I fail to agree. You've explained your position to me, but I'm not bought in. So were I to buy in to your initial premise, yes indeed I would not be being logical to not following your path of reasoning. But look, I haven't been convinced of the premise. I find it believable still...

If you for a moment imagine agreeing with the premise "transwomen are women", just imagine where that logic would take you. That's where your opposition stand. They're buying that premise, not your "it's impossible^ premise, and it's a door I haven't been persuaded to close. That's where the problem lies.

Your position makes sense based on your initial premise. Consider what would make sense if you were on the other side of the fence, and you'll see the opposite position is rational too, in its way.

*demonstRably

You compared it below to a sign saying "homosexuality is unnatural", remember?

Ereshkigal I was told the sign said "transwomen are men", not "men are not women"

Rat we are imagining exactly where the premise of "transwomen are women" takes us. It takes us to male sex offenders in women's prisons, no scope for sex discrimination cases, no more women's sport, no right to a female HCP doing your smear test, no right to a rape support group without male bodied individuals being present.

That's the fucking problem. We know exactly where it takes us.

The problem here is not a failure of imagination on our parts.

Rat- I have 4 practical questions that I have never had answers to- would it be possible for you to have a go?

1. What impact do you think self identification will have on the gathering of statistics- for example, about crime?
2. Do you think that transwomen should automatically be allowed to compete against natal women in sport? I know you have had a go at this one, but your response seems to have been “I”m sure it’ll be fine” Would you feel that way if you had done years of training to be beaten by someone who had been training as a man until 6 months ago? (This is not hypothetical)
3. Do you think that natal women, particularly vulnerable women, should be able to refuse intimate care from male bodied people?
4. Do you think that schemes intended to redress the historic under representation of women in various areas of life should be automatically open to anyone self identifying as a woman- even if they had been benefiting from male privilege until a year ago.

Why are otherwise sensible people tolerating, for one second, the nonsense that we should accept people "identifying as" something which objectively they are not?

'Identify as' shouldn't mean "want to be" or "really likes" or "envies" or "longs to be considered as".

Noone should be giving the time of day to the concept of validating what someone strongly "feels themself to be". We're adults, not children playing make believe.

It is entirely irrelevant what people strongly identify as or feel themselves to be. What matters is the truth. We owe each other the truth.

Otherwise intelligent adults are advocating for indulging other adults whilst they pretend or delude themselves. It's incredible.

What do you think "transwomen are men" means exactly?

Hairy I know a bit about the difference, but I obviously don't think my position is tantamount to that at all.

And follow up - transwomen are men. They are men who are unhappy with their sexed bodies, with what society expects as "masculine behaviour", they are men prepared (in some cases) to take steps to modify their sexed bodies. But they are still men. And all that unhappiness and effort is their issue, not mine.

Noone should be giving the time of day to the concept of validating what someone strongly "feels themself to be". We're adults, not children playing make believe.

Totally agree.

If you for a moment imagine agreeing with the premise "transwomen are women", just imagine where that logic would take you. That's where your opposition stand.

Most of them, especially the men, are lying virtue signallers.

Also, re. sport.

It's not just elite sport.

My DS plays under 11s rugby. At that age it's full contact, but still mixed (because they are all pre-pubertal so there's no difference in strength). His team has 3 very promising and committed girls playing.

Imagine those girls 10 years from now, confronted with a man in the front row of the opposing team's scrum. Do they risk spinal injury, or do they give up on rugby?

That's the choice you will be putting before them.

What do you think "transwomen are men" means exactly?

What's that got to do with whether or not its justification to invoke a tribunal? Those are the words that were used, not any others. It's those words that will be being discussed.

For the record, I'm not dense. But I think it's pretty clear what that sign "meant" depends entirely on what side of the debate you stand, don't you? I mean you either think transwomen are women or you don't; that much is clear. It would seem that "the powers that be" in that case were of the opinion that they are. At least that's how it seems to me.

Imagine those girls 10 years from now, confronted with a man in the front row of the opposing team's scrum.

It's unlikely, given the league structures within organised sport, that they'd come up against an individual whose strengths or abilities were so vastly different to their own.

No it isnt. Look at Fallon Fox.

Rat you are being disingenuous and are not answering any of the very relevant questions about whether people are able to 'identify' as being anything they like - a person of a different race, a person of a different age, a person with blue eyes instead of brown eyes, a different species, a table, a chair. And if someone can't identify as such, why not? You are treating this like a game toying with words and theoretical happenings when there are current examples, many examples, of men 'identifying' as women in order to harrass, abuse and assault women. Women are being hurt NOW because of this.