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.

I'm quite partial to a bit of word salad. I'm fairly comfortable with words meaning different things in different contexts, and identity as a negotiation between the individual and society, and reality as something contingent. I think the idea of sex as socially constructed exposes the oppressive nature of centuries of observations made by wealthy and powerful men to keep women below them in an artificial hierarchy.

But then the question is: what do we do with this approach to observations of biological difference? If 'science' isn't 'true' then the basis for oppressing women is undermined. Claims of male superiority rest on social constructions and can be reconfigured. There can be multiple ways of expressing one's negotiation with society about one's sex.

Meanwhile, the genealogy of sexism provides a context for those multiple expressions in each society. New possibilities are welcomed only insofar as they do not deviate too much from what is socially meaningful. Politically conservative social functions, such as legal systems, attempt to accommodate novel expressions into existing binary systems.

Therefore, the best route to freedom for trans people is almost certainly third spaces. Third spaces resist the status quo and legitimise multiple expressions of gender. Third spaces provide better validation for trans identities than squeezing into an oppressive binary. Third spaces are trans positive and empowering. Third spaces give trans people a way to develop their identities free of the encumberances of outmoded binaries, and to destabilise oppressive sex-based hierarchies. I would support the development of trans-positive spaces where trans people can redefine existing constructions of sex and gender. It's quite likely that third spaces would thus promote inclusivity.

Not trying to give anyone a headache; just trying to work through an idea and hoping to do so in a way that doesn't cause offence to anyone. As always, apologies if I missed the mark.

I agree with physical unisex spaces but it would be so disappointing to consign trans people to a third space in language and definitions because that reinforces the binary for everyone else and marginalises trans people. I would much prefer to smash the gender binaries altogether. This would address toxic masculinity and male violence which affects far more people. I don't understand how sex can possibly be socially constructed, however, and I am certainly not prepared to relinquish my belief that there is an objective reality, albeit we have limited access to it.

Wheredowebegintocovetclarice I agree in lots of ways. It has almost become unacceptable in many situations to assert that reality exists.

Cardsforkittens I would also support third trans spaces. It doesn't seem that this is what is wanted, which is a shame.

Physical third spaces I mean (refuges etc). I agree with Sarah that the best option for everyone, trans people included, would be to get serious about dismantling sex stereotypes.

CardsforKittens
I agree with you about third spaces, but as for sex being socially constructed...

Sex is about reproduction. No matter how much word salad is posted, it doesn't change how babies are made.

If you change the meaning of the words 'sex' and 'woman' we will just need new words to describe those realities. Because science is real and still exists no matter how much you play about with language.

So far on this thread alone DadJoke has two posts referring to 'cis' for women despite 'The Rules'. Am I missing something?

That doesn't bother me personally SpareRibFeb. Free speech and all that. But I totally get your point, given that T** is banned.

Still waiting for DadJoke's definition of 'woman'. Do you have one @DadJoke ?

Could it be because nobody has reported incidents of 'cis'? Suggesting that it really is a debate from the GC POV?

Maybe it doesn't count if the person using it doesn't understand what an empty and self contradictory term it is.

Yes I think it's probably because the GC side aren't officious tell tales who want to silence debate.

SpareRib

I choose not to rise to it. I would never report it because I want people to see the discussion Because it shows them up. I don't like it but that's neither here nor there.

He's probably doing it from ignorance rather than any malice.

General Talk Guidelines https://www.mumsnet.com/info/netiquette

Specific guidelines relating to trans and gender critical discussions
https://www.mumsnet.com/info/trans-rights-moderation-policy

And one more set of rules to be mindful of when posting on MN, especially the Feminist boards
https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/comments/6kkeni/theerulesoffmisogyny/

The definition is taken out of man.

The definition is taken out of man.

sorry, what do you mean?

Dadjoke is coming up with similar lines in Aibu

Look it up. That is the literal meaning of woman.

I think you're referring to the origin of the word starzig. We're talking about definition; a different thing.

Oh you want a description then. Not a definition.

No starzig. Definition is fine.

So long as you are happy. I do tend to get a bit picky.

I suppose that sorting by rank as MsB suggests would be sorting by beliefs or personality.
An exercise in promoting maximum divisiveness and reducing the capacity to communicate ideas in a meaningful way.

Interesting that the rule against misgendering on FWR does not apply to dads.

No, we are talking about definition, which is the meaning. You have given a possible derivation. Not sure where you got it from though. I've looked at a few, wiki summarises the consensus pretty well:

'The spelling of "woman" in English has progressed over the past millennium from wīfmann[1] to wīmmann to wumman, and finally, the modern spelling woman.[2] In Old English, wīfmann meant "female human", whereas wēr meant "male human". Mann or monn had a gender-neutral meaning of "human", corresponding to Modern English "person" or "someone"; however, subsequent to the Norman Conquest, man began to be used more in reference to "male human", and by the late 13th century had begun to eclipse usage of the older term wēr.[3] The medial labial consonants f and m in wīfmann coalesced into the modern form "woman", while the initial element wīf, which meant "female", underwent semantic narrowing to the sense of a married woman ("wife").'

There you go. Derivation which oddly enough gets us back to 'female human'.
We could take this over to pedants' corner?

Hey, but maybe we should push for the reinstatement of werman for blokes, and revert man to being neutral?