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.

'Some trans people are bad people but that isn't the same of all groups'

Transwomen retain male levels of violence. It is not the case that women are never violent (and of course NAMALT NATWALT) but the odds of a woman encountering a violent woman who will sexually attack us is miniscule. I like many other women have been sexually attacked by a man. So I'll say it again for those hard of hearing transwomen retain male levels of violence

sorry Offred having to do these in two posts and yours was posted later. I wanted to give proper consideration to both posts and any others that actually address the issues and don't just name call.

I think really bespin, the thing is that the simple truth is that trans people are other than man and woman and female and male...

this.this hits the nail right on the head, we are indeed this and throughout history we have been recognised as such, other ancient cultures have created societies based around this notion and in the west we have dropped that concept and have based our culture around a binary definition of gender. It is this that causes the issue when trans people want to interact with society as the system is not designed to accommodate us and within the next few generations at least that is likely to continue. though the fastest growning trans group is non binary and it is starting to have an impact of society and younger people who have no difficulty with this concept on the whole, it took me ages to fully get it but im older and it was only seeing it in action that I could get it and also even I struggled to use they them at first. none of this is easy for people.

So if we can start to dismantle the binary system then I think we have a chance to finally address the issues, I think feminists and transgendered people are best when they work together on this and a lot of amazing work as been done in this way. As the binary social construct is one of the pillars of the patriarchy it will be hard to dismantle but I feel that trans and non binary people are able to raise questions like this one on self id that start to question the binary system.

I fully except that you don’t believe that means trans people are less than human. but there are a number of posts on this forum many now removed that equate the whole social group of trans woman as sexual predators, child abusers or paedophiles I have seen it and in the past I have been told I facilitate child abuse because I help young trans people, something that I am very proud of as I know the impact I have had on there mental health and know at least 2 would not be here today without it. this group and mumsnet were and to some extent still are very silent on condemning posts like this, I have been asked time and time again to condemn TRA violence and I always do as its wrong. but equally when asked to agree that such posts are wrong I am told they don't exist when we all clearly know they do. I think that cheapens the debate on both sides and I am critical of other trans people who don't condemn violence or as happened the other day the leaks of personal information and I take some flack for that but if something is wrong we should say it is.

mumsnet is not a gender critical space its a forum, who at this time as a lot of gender critical posts on it, it is owned by them and it is used by all its members granted at the moment a lot of people are coming here and I hate the TRA that come here to just make stupid points, if they want to debate then stay and debate like this.

SpareRibFem

I'm getting a bit off the topic of the thread here here, but is there any data showing that the average transwoman is as likely as the average man to commit acts of violence against other women?

There was a long term study in Sweden.

gendertrender.wordpress.com/2015/04/07/statistics-show-the-difference-in-rates-of-violent-crimes-against-women-committed-by-transwomen-versus-non-transgender-males/

The only long-term study of transgender outcomes concluded that “Male to Female” transsexuals retain male-pattern criminality, including crimes against women. [Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden
journals.plos.org/plosone/articleid=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885]

unfortunately I have to go work now

the line Transwomen retain male levels of violence is based on one study that as a very easily disproven methodology and is often quoted, I would love to know the real levels then we could discuss it properly, but until that is available I will simply choose to disagree on that.

when people use the word bullying for someone having a open and honest debate then it is often done to silence there view. it also implies that in some way I am using my male privilege though by trying to do that all you are saying that a woman would not be able to hold such views and are therefore buying into the patriarchal views of woman. I have had lots of discussions around issues effecting woman and when it is not something I have experienced then I listen. you have no idea if I have been assaulted or not or faced similar levels of male violence in my life, because the men that do this to us often don't care to check if we are trans or not when they do it.

Bespin, I totally agree that we have a huge area of common interest in resisting sex stereotypes. The sad thing is that GC women would be right up on the barricades alongside transwomen if we didn't feel like our boundaries were being trampled on and reality appropriated. I think that resisting this is sometimes understood as transphobia, which it is not.

Look, if you are appealing to female socialisation by using words like empathy and compassion to get your own way and undermine women's boundaries and consent, you're being anti-feminist. It doesn't matter how many walls of text you spend doing it. Feminism is not an identity any more than woman is.

Thanks for sticking around to discuss this Bespin.

and as if by magic the study appears, quickly if you do read it please be mindful where the writer makes a conclusion or an assumption based on other data that this might be the same. the evidence is not clear on that as it does not take into account other social economic factors or that trans woman are oftern in the lower social economic bands or in sex work or other related issues.

enjoy your day ladies.

The author has made a statement that they stand by this study, despite claims made elsewhere.
No one has been able to refute it.

And thank you everyone else! I mention Bespin particularly, because I find it helpful to test my thinking and check that I have not in fact morphed into a bigot on this one issue.

Here is a defintiion I pulled from the another thread.

Gender identity. The first thing to get out of the way is the use of the word "identify" which sounds like its an act of choice. It's an identity like an identity card - it describes who you are. In the same way that a person "feels" gay, even if they don't act on it, gender identity is an inherent state. So, your identity might be a man, a woman, or other gender. It's not a choice. You might not be able to understand why a person is attracted to someone of the same sex, when you aren't, but it's a real thing. There are examples of people whose gender identity changes, in much the same way that sexuality can vary, but that doesn't mean it's not real. For many of us whose body matches the gender associated in vast majority of cases to their sex, we don't even feel we have a gender. And even if it does match, it does not lessen in any way the very real sex-based oppresion rooted in biology. For example, transmen and ciswomen share the possibility of being raped and impregnated, whereas transwomen don't. It's entirely possible for someone to lie about their sexuality, even for nefarious ends, but that doesn't mean sexuality isn't real.

The relationship between gender expression and gender identity is complex. First, wanting to wear pink is not a sign you are a girl, and I think it's vital to allow children to express themselves without ascribing their behaviour to a particular gender. However, it's not surprising that trasngirls want to be like other girls, even if the gender expression for those girls is rooted in oppression.

So there is sex-based oppression and gender based oppression, then there is oppression suffered by trans people which is not suffered by the rest of us.

I understand why women here want to disasociate themsleves with the idea of gender - but that's conflating societal pressure to conform to a gender stereotype with gender identity, which would be the same in even in an equal society without restrictive gender expression.

I and other GC women believe that the gender binary is what is harmful - to all of society. That oppression is imposed via gender (masculine/feminine) based on sex (male/female) stereotypes.

Sex binary however is material reality. I don’t want to get into a discussion about the identities of intersex people as organisations representing them have asked not to be co-opted into these discussions but I will briefly say that sex binary still applies to this group of people (and is different to gender identity) and they have different shared characteristics re material reality to trans people (some crossover re common interests but different characteristics and needs as with between women and transwomen) when looked at on a group level.

I believe that our society has addressed transphobia and discrimination towards transpeople by trying to fit them into socially acceptable positions, including in the GRA and EA. This essentially a form of codified transphobia and it has had the result of shaping the current lobbying so that what is now being called for is even further shoehorning in of trans people to socially acceptable categories...

It is more acceptable to transphobic, sexist and homophobic society for transwomen to be women than accept that gender is a caste system that damages all people but particularly those who don’t conform to it or who are considered lower caste.

In this modern activism for trans people what I see is a group of people who feel they need to erase the fact they do not conform re gender caste and make an argument that they have been mistakenly attributed the wrong position in the system. This requires obscuring a part of themselves that is fundamental to full recognition of humanity in society (biological sex) and protection from discrimination IMO.

It is very similar to how re sexuality non-conforming re sexual and romantic relationships results in ‘men who have sex with men’ or ‘born this way’. IMO it reflects inherent homophobia in society, which has been absorbed by those who don’t conform to the system of oppression, when people feel they have to erase part of themselves or put themselves beyond (prejudiced) suspicion. It makes me sad, acceptance and recognition of homosexuality should not depend on having to inherently accept that homosexuality is ‘bad’ but it isn’t a choice, which is what I hear in this stuff.

It is also what I hear in TWAW and the equivalent ‘born this way’...

Caveat; I would not go so far as to say that biology has no input at all re sexuality/gender identity/personality/behaviour, the science is new but I expect what we will eventually find out is that individual human beings are the sum total of biological roots and environmental influences.

If we want to be free of oppressive binaries then, IMO, the starting point should be that transwomen need to be able to be recognised as transwomen, transmen as transmen, women and men as sex classes and not based on femininity/masculinity. Hopefully we would then get to the point where there was no gender caste system.

In some ways the stonewall definition of trans, which is designed to include is good because it clearly exposes, IMO, that almost nobody (except those at the extreme end re conformity in the gender caste system) conforms to gendered roles, behaviours, expectations etc

What is bad about it is that it is trying to argue that people who don’t conform to what is expected are the exception re gender caste, when it is clear by the application of the definition, that they are in fact the majority of people.

People who either conform extremely to gendered expectations or are extremely non-conforming are the two natural outlier groups. People who conform re what is accepted in the gender caste don’t need protection because they don’t suffer oppression from it. People who have dysphoria regarding their sex are the other outlier group and they suffer oppression related to transgression.

I think the stonewall definition is terrible for people with dysphoria. IMO it is the people with dysphoria who are the ones who are really in desperate need of recognition that, though they may properly be considered a member of a particular sex class, this is not enough. Sex class alone does not recognise their humanity, their needs, their reality.

But this therefore cannot be solved by identifying into the opposite sex class either because sex class alone, IMO, does not adequately recognise humanity for this group.

That’s not to say that the majority of people who don’t completely conform re gender don’t suffer sanctions, abuse etc and don’t need any protection, it’s just to say that I think those with dysphoria are a priority group and that addressing their needs properly should result in improvements for all non-conformity. If it doesn’t then it’s not really helping.

And this is in part why many women are objecting to the current activism. It’s not helping re the gender binary caste system that is resulting in oppression, discrimination and abuse, it’s actually got potential to codify it or at the very least block routes out of oppression which depend on the material reality of biological sex binary (this is how we understand that application of the gender caste system is discriminatory in the first place).

I can remember when it properly kicked in around 13-14 and how upto that point people were happy for me to play with the other girls and the girls were happy for me to play with them. Its a bit of a shock when the world suddenly tells you that is wrong.

Bespin This is something that comes up a lot here - from both sides. But what that tells me is that people need to be more open minded and stop putting people into gender boxes. If a boy wants to play with the girls, he should not be told that there is anything wrong with that, because there isn't. the answer is not, as seems to be the case these days, to tell the boy that he is "really" a girl.

I would like to. beleive that we could live in the world that you discribe but that is not the world we are in

So if society is not accepting of gender non-conformity, we have to change bodies/status in order to conform? Why not try to change the way people think? Get people to accept those who don't conform?

The world we are in is one in which "woman" and "female" are still biological realities. Why can't we retain that whilst working towards a more tolerant society in which differences are respected and celebrated?

We are in this mess because the gendered expectations have become more important than actual sex differences. People should be accepted if they step outside the gender norms. But by doing so, it does not mean they have changed sex.

* DadJoke* Much of what you said is correct but doesn't really need mansplaining reiterating here.

However
that's conflating societal pressure to conform to a gender stereotype with gender identity, which would be the same in even in an equal society without restrictive gender expression.

I'm not at all convinced that's true. And I'm not sure what it really has to do with the topic of whether the definition of 'woman' should or can be redefined.

Any advance on LangClegs pair (the addition of the feminist social definition is helpful)

Bold fail...invert up to the visible *
I hate it when it does that.

I've come the conclusion that one of the reasons that gender critical feminists and people like argumentativefeminist and RatRolyPoly are having such a problem understanding each other is because we are actually speaking two different languages.

The view of most of the people on here is that we should use a scientific definition of the word woman - "adult female human". The view of rat and af is that "woman" is a gender identity - nothing to do with science. We are talking about two different things.

You can identify with a "gender" - the trappings of femininity for example - you can't identify with a sex, because sex is biological, it is not an identity.

Clearly if we change the language so that "woman" no longer means "adult female human" we need another word with that definition. Because science does not change just because language changes. The reality of sex differences are still there even if you redefine "woman", "man" and "sex". Science exists outside of language.

I am not sure if the people who are arguing for a change in the language are actually claiming that we no longer need a word with the definition "adult human female". Maybe one of them would come back and explain.

As BarrackerBarmer put it earlier: Women will always exist, we will always be the opposite sex to TW and there will never be a way to erase that male and female distinction. And that applies, no matter what word is used to describe us.

errolthedragon this is a thread about alternative definitions of a woman. That's what I posted and I tried to avoid circular logic. I may well have been patronising or mansplainy, but I wasn't off topic.

that's conflating societal pressure to conform to a gender stereotype with gender identity, which would be the same in even in an equal society without restrictive gender expression.
I'm not at all convinced that's true. And I'm not sure what it really has to do with the topic of whether the definition of 'woman' should or can be redefined.

What is has to do with it, is that most of the people here resist the newer definition, because they conflate gender identity (which is culturally neutral) with gender expression and gender and sex based oppression. This definition of woman is independent of whether their are different and misaligned expectations of women and men (there are), whether there is oppression based on biology, or how those two things relate.

And, we don't actually get to decide how words are defined, we can only use them, and lexicographers measure that usage.

Every time this topic comes up, people talk about gender boxes and people being forced or expected to behave in certain ways. All this is true, and trans people have the same issues and expectations - they don't disagree. But you don't need to deny their identity in order for this to be true.

But you don't need to deny their identity in order for this to be true.

Why does accepting their personal subjective view of themselves with no frame of reference outside their own worldview take precedence over everything, including women's rights and the rights of all people who don't share that quasi religious worldview?

Gender identity. The first thing to get out of the way is the use of the word "identify" which sounds like its an act of choice. It's an identity like an identity card - it describes who you are. In the same way that a person "feels" gay, even if they don't act on it, gender identity is an inherent state.

That's an ideological belief not a fact. I don't have a gender identity. I am a woman. Am I "agender"?

If you ask me, TWAW is a purely masculine expression of male dominance and entirely emblematic of the patriarchal society we live in.

I don't accept it and I will never accept it, no matter how many appeals to female socialisation are made and no matter how many pomo-addled screeds get written and no matter how many threads full of circular non-definitions appear hereabouts. That's it. End of.

DadJoke
You said identity describes who you are
In what way does someone's gender identity describe 'who they are,' especially if their gender identity is the literal opposite of an objective description of who they are? What is this 'who they are' if it is divorced from any objective, observable information?

Ereshkigal

Do you think that gay people's desire to get married should take precedence over some heterosexual people's desire to define marriage as a a union between a man and a woman? Is sexuality subjective because it can't be seen? Gender identity is not a belief like a religion, any more than sexuality is, and accepting that transwomen are women does not in any way reify sex or gender based oppression. It doesn't mean that the struggles of feminists are not real.

I think the conflation of the expectations based on gender with gender indentity itself is at the heart of what the hurt and anger felt here is.

Women who are not trans and trans men are oppressed as a direct result of their biology. All women are oppressed as a result of their gender identity. Transmen can benefit from male privelege. Transwomen can suffer sexism. In addition, transgender people suffer from transphobia.

DadJoke

I identify as a schnargle. What is a schnargle? Anyone who identifies as schnarge.

Are you any the wiser as to the nature of schnargle? No, you are not.

If you can't define your terms; you can't demand legislation and social policy because they will be unworkable and default to extant power structures - in this case, the patriarchal power structures which benefit males. This is why extremist transactivism is a male supremacist political movement.

Do you think that gay people's desire to get married should take precedence over some heterosexual people's desire to define marriage as a a union between a man and a woman?

This isn't about gay marriage. This is about the feelings of a group of biological male people being placed above women's.

Why do you think you can talk over women on this?