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.

Pratchet, I think its best described as

I will spout bollocks, because they sound like they are nice and fluffy and seem to fit with my sentiments of social justice. But I don't understand this nor the foundations of what they actually mean. I will just repeat by rote what I am told is socially good. Without properly questioning it, and getting to a level where my comprehension is full and I can explain why there is no cognitive dissonce in saying that sex is not based on reality but race is. In other words I am a sheeple, who merely says what other people have told me to say, like a parrot because I have lost my facilties and ability to think. And I so no problem whatsoever in how I have been brainwashed and have no fucking idea about the idea and concept I am prompting

I must say, I am actually releaved we have an admission of it, for others to see.

As I've said repeatedly, to be liberal you actually have to understand the foundations and history of WHY and WHERE those values and frameworks came from. If you don't understand that women's suffrage came from biology realities then you don't understand the roots of feminism, so how can you understand what is feminism and what isn't feminism? For example.

The same for human rights. If you don't understand it is always about protecting the most vulnerable and voiceless in a situation, not the one who shouts loudest so that organisations capitulate then you don't understand rights.

The wall of text is pointless. You use a premise you have previously destroyed to try to make your case. Understand this, Rat. It will save you a lot of typing.

I'll give you an example to ponder though. Patterns. A pattern is a a regular and intelligible form or sequence discernible in the way in which something happens or is done. So imagine you're observing a sequence of numbers generated by an algorithm and you identify a pattern. You call it a pattern. It is a pattern.

Male violence is a pattern, I'll give you that one...

The rest is meaningless word salad.

It's not perfect.

Your definition of "woman" is not imperfect: it's non-existent.

There is no point in your being irritated by women who point this out to you. Your aim, if you want to be taken seriously, is to find a definition and use it to assert your argument. If you can't do that, I'm afraid you don't have an argument.

it makes some people feel hurt and uncomfortable

This is female socialisation 101. You cannot realistically describe yourself as a feminist if your argument is that women should obey female socialisation because male people might get upset. Sorry.

Hence why when it doesn't really matter what's in someone's pants or there DNA it's probably A-okay to call them a woman when that is what they perceive themselves to be. Although of course not mandatory if that is not what you perceive them to be

not mandatory? Interesting- this would appear to contradict everything I’ve heard thus far from activists

If "woman" now includes males, then what word do we use for adult human females, who are clearly completely different?

Good question. Perhaps argumentativefeminist or RatRolyPoly could give us an answer?

As I've said repeatedly, to be liberal you actually have to understand the foundations and history of WHY and WHERE those values and frameworks came from. If you don't understand that women's suffrage came from biology realities then you don't understand the roots of feminism, so how can you understand what is feminism and what isn't feminism?

YY

a woman when that is what they perceive themselves to be

What is the definition of "woman" that their perception relates to?

'It's complicated' is not good enough RatRolyPoly

If 'pattern' means a regular and intelligible form or sequence discernible in the way in which something happens or is done and an irregular and unintelligible form or sequence, sometimes then what is a pattern?

Repeat after me:

Correlation is not causation.

Correlation is not causation.

Correlation is not causation.

Correlation is not causation.

Correlation is not causation.

Repeat after me:

Correlation is not causation.

Correlation is not causation.

Correlation is not causation.

Correlation is not causation.

Correlation is not causation.
Correlation is not causation.

It seems that the modern defenition of woman that is currently being pushed on us is - a person that identifies, associated and conforms to the gender stereotypes commonly associated with females.

Female remains the definition of a person who has the female reproductive role/organs or xx chromosomes.

So if your a female that does not identify with your gender stereotypes, but does not identify as a man, than you could be a female person but neither a man or a woman.

If we allow the definition of woman to be expanded and changed - but keep female as the scientific biological meaning of female member of the species - how long will it be before the 'non traditional' women want to join into the definition of female.

What will happen to the discriptive worlds for other female species, such as geese, ewe, cow, bitch, mare, vixen. Will these terms no longer have biological basis and instead be based on the animals behavior and look?

What is a Dad? Is it a supplier of sperm or the person that raised, loved, disciplined the child.

Biology says one thing, humanity says another. It’s a similar concept.

You do realise rat that using your pattern analogy you have managed to make an argument that material reality is not altered by the incorrect perceptions/application of terms by human beings? Simply the incorrect use of a descriptive term is seen to be incorrect once more information is gathered...

You also fail to make any comment on the scientific processes that safeguard against making pronouncements prior to having sufficient information and incorrectly applying terms.

For your analogy to be applied in a way that supports your view it would have to be the case that the word woman had been pre-emptively applied to adult human females and that there is good quality evidence to suggest that male and female are not scientifically sound.

This is not the case.

What is occurring is not that evidence suggests they is a need to change sex categories, or that man and woman have been being incorrectly applied to said sex categories...

It is that gender identity is being positioned as a better way of categorising people in order to access legal rights and protections and therefore should replace sex in practice if not in the letter of the law.

I do not believe this to be true. Sex classes, which remain definable are a much better way of categorising people for the purposes of the law.

Dog (n)

1. a domesticated carnivorous mammal that typically has a long snout, an acute sense of smell, non-retractile claws, and a barking, howling, or whining voice.

1. Anyone who identifies as (1).

It seems that the modern defenition of woman that is currently being pushed on us is - a person that identifies, associated and conforms to the gender stereotypes commonly associated with females.

Yes. Instead of: "I am a woman, but I don't conform to the gender stereotypes of my sex", we get " I conform to female gender stereotypes, therefore I am a woman".

So if a woman is now anyone who conforms to female gender stereotypes, what word do we use for people with female biology (who may or may not conform to the stereotypes)?

I've asked this question before elsewhere, and am hoping for an answer.

If "woman" is simply an identity with no material basis in sex, then "trans woman" ought to be the same thing, right?
So. Can a person born unequivocally female (with completely normal development) self-identify as a trans woman?

This has entirely come about because of the conflation of gender and sex in the GRA.

Gender is different from sex and the two should not be conflated in law.

Interesting. Are the mum of a child also their dad? what about teachers - they too can be said to discipline and care for children- are they also dads?

How long should a birth certificate be, to enable accurate recording of all these potential dads? And mums too presumably- just because you are a dad (or not) of a child doesn’t mean you can’t also be their mum, I suppose

In regards to the dog enaligy - you get kittens or lambs raised by dogs that then think they're a dog and behave like a dog.

So are those confused animals dog? As the definition says, typically has a long snout, an acute sense of smell, non-retractile claws, and a barking, howling, or whining voice. - not all dog fit those characteristics. Some dogs are flat face or have anozmia. So surely based on the TRA reasoning the lamb or the kitten can be the dog.

What is occurring is not that evidence suggests they is a need to change sex categories, or that man and woman have been being incorrectly applied to said sex categories...

It is that gender identity is being positioned as a better way of categorising people in order to access legal rights and protections and therefore should replace sex in practice if not in the letter of the law.

We have sex segregation for some services, facilites and activities because women and men are physically different. Mixing them up and re-segregating on the basis of a feeling in some people's heads is so insane I can't understand why anyone even considers it, let alone this being enshrined in law.

this is transphobic. female can also mean penis etc in which case said organ is a female penis. Watch you don’t get deleted, matey

No such thing as a female penis. Someone may consider their penis more feminine after taking hormones. But it is still not a female organ. It is a male organ. As defined by biology and the dictionary. To think otherwise demonstrates you are deluding yourself.

What is a Dad? Is it a supplier of sperm or the person that raised, loved, disciplined the child.

Biology says one thing, humanity says another. It’s a similar concept.

Dad is a term of affection. Father is a statement of origin.

Comparison is apples v oranges. Aka a straw man argument.

If we strip this back right down to the core, there is a massive logical dissonants going on.
So the new definition of woman is anyone who identifies as a woman, and all language and discourse related to biology has to be removed to be inclusive, so by design the category of woman becomes nebulous and therefore meaningless.
What in that case is the point of joining that category? Where is the value in fighting for the right to become part of a category that you render meaningless just by doing so? People don’t generally expend such large amounts of energy and resources ob something that has no value at the end of it, I mean people don’t break into Smyths to Nick all the monopoly money, so what is the value? It’s obviously not womanhood because they want all the language and discourse around womanhood to be stripped away, so what is it? What is The real motivation for all this political wheedling, silencing, bullying, abuse and violence, because it’s not for admission to an empty room. Only the deluded or the very thick would create such a shit storm for something as inconsequential as what they would have us believe self ID means.

I think the most important question to ask is who benefits from replacing sex with gender? Who loses out?