Alternative Definitions of 'Woman'?

[Dragoncake]

Do you disagree with the definition of 'woman' as 'adult human female'?

If you disagree, what is your own definition of the word?

A woman is....what exactly?

Is there even a definition? Or is 'woman' simply indefinable in your view?

On the 'A Woman is an Adult Human Female' thread I asked those who disagree to provide their alternative definition of the word.

Several people engaged, but nobody seemed able to do this.

If you have one, please post your alternative definition here. Thanks.

Yes, surely by Rats thinking, I as a white person, could identify as black? I just need to answer the question of 'who here is black' with 'I am!' Easy!

x-posted Quentin.

I identify as a slim, attractive 30 year old man, I want to be treated, and paid, as such - rather than as an invisible old fat grey-haired unimportant woman (of the non-self-identifying type).

It is a nonsense.

Nope, quite literally what happens in reality actually. We don't usually go around checking the veracity of various things before ascribing terms.

Argumentativefeminist thank you. Lots of food for thought there.

Intersex organisations have asked for intersex not to be appropriated into this argument.

Re. linguistics, that's a interesting discussion. But again, too nebulous a basis for legislation IMO.

I just need to answer the question of 'who here is black' with 'I am!' Easy!

You'd have to believe it first, and then we could have a conversation about it.

I don't "identify as such" - what am I? Woman? Man? Non-woman? Non-man?

Drafting laws is going to be a tad difficult.

Woman = only those adult humans that are female or those who identify as such

Saying this doesn't make it true.

The redefinition of words to mean what a certain class of people wish them to mean is ridiculous.

The class of person who is born female is still easily identifiable in reality and discriminated against on that basis. People who identify as a woman, whilst being male bodied, do not face the same discrimination and have benefitted from the privilege associated with their male bodies. You want to redefine woman to mean whatever you want it to mean, forcing those previously described to have to invent a new name for themselves or put up with the nifty little Latin descriptor that these new women want us to use.

I don't "identify" as non-gender or a-gender or a llama either, by the way.

I don't "identify" as being old, or fat, or Irish, or female, or pedantic; I just am those things.

You'd have to believe it first, and then we could have a conversation about it.

And how do you tell if the 'self identifying' woman actually believes it?

Also, you haven't answered the question of identifying into and out of womanhood? If you can identify into womanhood, then why don't all the women who are oppressed on the basis of their sex just identity out of their womanhood, therefore escaping their oppression?

Not all descriptive words can be identified with in the same way as woman, because some of them, like tall or pregnant, are physical facts. The argument that I put forward is that woman shouldn't be a physical fact, it should be an identity that you can choose.

PP going "woman=person=man", you know you're wilfully misrepresenting the argument. There's humans, and some of these humans are women, and some of these humans are men. That's always been the case, men and women have always both been people. Woman is an adult human who wants to take on the identity of woman, Man is an adult human who wants to take on the identity of man. Both still people, yes, but not therefore the same.

And you can "identify out of womanhood" if that's the way you want to put it. Trans men and agender/gender non-binary people exist.

As an aside, if laws are drafted using commonly known and accepted meanings for words (such as women), and then society goes completely bonkers changes the meaning of the words, shouldn't the laws be redrafted?

If I sign a contract to buy my house, and have a piece of paper saying I own it, and then someone, somewhere decides "house" only means "kitchen" does that mean I don't own my house any more?

I mean, that sounds completely stupid in my head - but it's happening with any law that uses the words "woman" "man" "male" or "female".

I've asked TRAs this from a genuine curiosity.

You can't use a biological definition because that's transphobic and wrong.
You can't use gender stereotypes because that is sexist and wrong

So what do we have left?

So far all I've got in response are tumbleweeds...

So a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman.

The point is - what are they identifying as? 'Woman' still needs defining. If I said a cubble was anyone who identified as a cubble, would you know what a cubble was besides a self-identifying thing?

You either are something or you are not.

'Identifying as' has bugger all to do with it. You could be mute, incapable of expression or dead and you still would just 'be'.

To paraphrase Shoeless Joe like I did yesterday...

... there is no objective definition of woman pursuant to which people who are not adult human females are women.

End. Of.

Two companion questions to the OP's would be: Do the class of people born with vaginas share characteristics and experiences that are unique to that group, and do they suffer any forms of oppression, violence or marginalisation that affect them specifically, or disproportionately to the class of people born with penises?

And if so, what is the word we can use to identify the vagina group specifically, so as to sometimes talk about their experiences, dignity and rights?

"woman shouldn't be a physical fact, it should be an identity that you can choose."

Why?

Is black an identity you can choose? Is disabled? Is young? Is British?

Why is sex the only identity a person can choose with no proof whatsoever - indeed with the opposite of proof as biological reality, body parts and DNA prove the opposite?

I am a schmargle.

What is a schmargle?

Anyone who identifies as a schmargle.

Am I any the wiser as to what a schmargle is? No.

Woman is an adult human who wants to take on the identity of woman

No its not. There are plenty of women out there who would be perfectly happy not to take on the identity of woman.

Ohhhh, I have to identify all the unifying features now do I?

RatRolyPoly, sorry, yes I think you do. Because the law and sweeping changes to society have a material effect on my life and that of all the women and girls I know. If this wasn't true I'd shrug and think 'interesting' and leave it there.

Are we really doing another 30 rounds of circular definitions? Can't be arsed.

Woman is an adult human who wants to take on the identity of woman

Define identity of woman in a non-circular fashion, please.

Not all descriptive words can be identified with in the same way as woman, because some of them, like tall or pregnant, are physical facts. The argument that I put forward is that woman shouldn't be a physical fact, it should be an identity that you can choose.

I see where you are coming from argumentativefeminist. Would you accept the word 'female' in place of 'women' for the purposes of law and organisation? To denote people of the female sex?

I am a schmargle because I have taken on the identity of a schmargle.

Would you like to know what a schmargle is or how one takes on its identity? Sorry, can't help you there.