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.

Female/male applies to all mammals.
Woman/man is the equivalent but unique to humans (hence being ‘...man’).

DickTERFin

Feeling an aversion to the thought that you are male/female is not the same as feeling female/male.

You are right! They are different, but they are both gender identities. One means, in this terminology,. you are cis, the other trans.

You can't point to where sexuality is in the body, you can't point to dysmorphia - that doesn't mean they are not real. It doesn't matter if you don't act on your sexuality, you still feel it, even in the absence of stimuli.

In fact, it's quite likely that gender identity is rooted in the physical, in the same way sexuality probably is. But I suspect even if could point to a physical cause, you still wouldn't buy the definition, in which case, this isn't your real objection.

There is so much conflating of sex and gender in the rest of your post that I can't easily pick it apart.

But I suspect even if could point to a physical cause, you still wouldn't buy the definition,

That's not true for me, actually. If there was scientific evidence to demonstrate a material mechanism for gender identity I would change my opinion. This is not the case.

Good legislation relies upon hard facts and clear definitions. Women will be detrimentally affected by the government proceeding with woolly definitions and no credible scientific backup.

What is your definition of 'woman', DadJoke?

You can't point to where sexuality is in the body, you can't point to dysmorphia - that doesn't mean they are not real.

Stop eliding. Nobody has said that dysmorphia isn't real. Everybody has told you that when you speak of the "gender identity" (defined as a belief in an ineffable self essence) of "woman" you will need to be able to define "woman" without circularity for it to have any actual meaning or integrity.

What is your non-circular definition of "woman"? Please provide.

In fact, it's quite likely that gender identity is rooted in the physical

If you are referring to gender dysphoria I wouldn't rule out a physical basis, like every other psychological condition. Anything else and we're in the realm of souls after all.

What is your non-circular definition of "woman"? Please provide.

Yes all ears here. Haven't had a non biological one that isn't yet, after all. Just a lot of empty pomo intellectualising.

I’d like to know what you are meaning by the ‘gender’ part of ‘gender identity’.

I think ‘who you are, what you are and what you do’ is a good way of understanding the make up of a person’s identity.

I actually understand the ‘who you are’ explanation re gender as personal qualities, mainly how a person sees themself and how others see them. I see observable biological sex as the ‘what you are’ part (material reality). It is ‘how I see myself’ differing from observable biological sex that I think a transgender identity is. I understand the degree of difference varies between people and, for some people, even in their personal identity it can vary over time . I believe this is broadly where ‘trans’ as an umbrella term comes from.

‘What you do’ re gender identity I feel may be completely irrelevant in law and socially and is actually how the gender caste system oppresses trans people. It must be said though that when gender identity and sex are conflated this also oppresses women by totally destroying sex class. Again, it’s not that GC women want to keep ‘what you do’ requirements for trans rights it is that we need trans rights not to conflate sex and gender - common interest IMO.

I understand the point re identity and expression as separating the ‘who you are’ from the ‘what you do’ and I believe the requirement to ‘live in the acquired gender’ is problematic because the GRA allows conflation of sex and gender both in the actual rights gained AND in the process for gaining the rights.

The thing is, someone’s identity is not just their own feelings about themselves, it is also how other people see them, their observable characteristics and the things that they do.

The GRA, by conflating sex and gender, actually made trans rights conditional on conforming re the caste system of gender IMO.

I sometimes think that ‘innate’ and ‘immutable’ are being conflated in this stuff too.... They are not the same, particularly something being immutable does not mean that it must be innate.

I can agree that gender identity, for a minority of people (who used to be called transsexuals), seems to be immutable. I believe sexuality is to a high degree immutable but I would also like it if sexuality and gender identity could be respected even if they were a simple lifestyle choice... that would be a sign IMO that they were no longer being morally judged.

The big big problem is that this cannot happen with transrights whilst gender is being conflated with sex. Conflating it with sex is transphobic IMO and a way of transphobic societies making something they feel is morally objectionable feel socially acceptable by denying full humanity.

(And please can you refrain from pronouncing that feeling you are male/female means you are ‘cis’, not having a gender identity does not mean that you do in fact have a gender identity and it must match your sex)

(And please can you refrain from pronouncing that feeling you are male/female means you are ‘cis’, not having a gender identity does not mean that you do in fact have a gender identity and it must match your sex)

Please also read the forum rules sticky at the top of FWR. Cis is not an acceptable term to use here.

I respect PPs who have had the integrity to provide their circular definitions TBH. I think that they are demonstrably misguided. But honest.

Saying that 'woman' is impossible to define would also be a misguided (IMO) but consistent position.

Insisting that the definition of 'woman' has changed and not providing an alternative is quite a difficult position to respect.

Apologies again DadJoke if I have missed your alternative definition. I have searched twice. Please do repost it if I did. Thanks.

Of course some people may feel they have a gender identity and that it matches their sex. I have met a significant number of straight men who are sexist, homophobic and transphobic who are this way and their gender identity is extremely important to them and prominent in their feelings about themselves and how they want others to perceive them. I know a few women who have a gender identity that they feel matched their sex too.

The vast majority of people simply don’t have a gender identity - their feelings about themselves do not include feelings re gender at all.

The thing is it’s the ‘matching’ and ‘not matching’ that is the part causing the problems because it means gender cannot be defined without sexist stereotypes such as pink/blue brain and masculine/feminine expression, personality, feelings and behaviour etc

Also a problem - not having a gender identity at all now brings you under stonewall’s trans umbrella, this is another, and quite creative TBH, method of enforcing a gender caste system as now people for whom gender identity was irrelevant are forced to have a gender identity.

The thing is it’s the ‘matching’ and ‘not matching’ that is the part causing the problems

When gender identity is discussed there is always this idea that someone's gender does or doesn't match their sex. In order to understand what this means, we need a definition for gender and an explanation of how it's related to sex.

Can you provide this, DadJoke?

Why on earth are you still going on as if your arguments made any sense? It makes none.

Yes, I would like to know more about this whole 'matching' thing?

Because literally unless there is evidence that some kind of chromosomally female brain can someone how been 'wrongly implanted' into the body of a male, I don't see how it has any legs at all.

Besides I thought the whole 'born in the wrong body' thing was outdated and transphobic now?

There is nothing to match with. If the body isn't female or male, there isn't any female or male for a gender identity to be or to match with.

Expect another word salad any time now.

Anyone remember that rather hilarious 'Sex and Gender Explorer' test some of had fun with a while back? It appeared to have been written from the POV of a youngish bloke from the way the questions were worded.

http://www.hemingways.org/GIDinfo/sage/

To be taken with a generous pinch of NaCl

"Feeling an aversion to the thought that you are male/female is not the same as feeling female/male."

You are right! They are different, but they are both gender identities. One means, in this terminology,. you are cis, the other trans.

Erm... ok. So an aversion to the thought that you are the sex you are is trans. And by your logic, cis is "feeling" like a male or a female or is it just not having an aversion to the fact that you are male or female?

What you seem to be saying is that dysphoria or absence of dysphoria are essential attributes of identity.

But how can an aversion or non-aversion to something be an identity?

You cannot identify something by the absence of certain characteristics, it's just illogical.

I get that some people are dysphoric with regard to their sexed body, but how is that different than someone who is dysphoric over the size of their body, or their hair colour, or being able bodied when they think they should be disabled etc?

It's so obvious.
Trans: bodies aren't female or male. If you are trans your body doesn't match your male or female gender identity.
Us: how can it match or not match when your body isn't female or male anyway
Trans: I'm too busy to discuss this which a bunch of bigots

Fatal flaw, fatal flaw.

There is no such thing as an innate identity. Babies are not born with identities. It would be bonkers to suggest that my identity would have been the same if I had been born and raised in China as it is as a woman born and raised in the UK. Identities develop socially. We contrast ourselves to some people and liken ourselves to others. Our understanding of ourselves is the story in our own brains. That story has extensive input from others but we also have an element of choice. Gender identity is the story in our brains of the extent to which we liken ourselves to others of our sex or the opposite sex. That is affected by how we perceive both sexes to behave. It is all a narrative. My sense of my own identity and gender identity is affected even by this conversation.

Identity isn't just 'how you see yourself' it would be a bit deranged for it to be so (caveat lots of people are delusional/deranged).
Identity is rooted in real, observable things, for example, ethnic heritage, political views, class belonging, cultural subgroup, religion, etc. So a person can meaningfully identify as a Romany feminist, working class, goth, Catholic. All of those things can be observed and disproved by facts.

In our modern times it would be rude to disprove anyone's claim to the identity above, but it would still be possible.
You could say -

1. You have no Romany heritage, your ancestors are all Danish.
2. You are not a feminist none of your opinions or actions suggest you are
3. You are not working class, your parents have a business employing 400 staff which you are set to inherit and you went to private school.

4.I have never seen you wear black or purple, or eyeliner, you listen to mainstream pop, you don't do anything associated with goths.

1. You are not a Catholic. You have never been to mass and your weren't even raised a Catholic.

Identity is not just how you perceive yourself, it is a claim to a particular subgroup which has a meaning to others when it is communicated.

The current trend for indulging people who claim to be something they are not and politely not challenging their barefaced lies or delusions is how we got into this mess.

Reality exists, people who claim to be things they provably are not are either liars or delusional.

Any attempt to make delusions and lies conform to logic will fail. The best you can do is disguise the failed logic by draping word salad all over it. Any attempt to take word salad drapery seriously and apply logic to it will give you a headache.