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.

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

Woman is a social term, female is a statement of biology.

What is a dad? A man who fathers a child, or someone who is identified as assuming that role. Seems alike to me.

Rat, your argument is destroyed. See previous posts. You are not engaging in good faith because you refuse to engage with this.

Pratchet, it really isn't destroyed; I got a first for the expanded version btw, just so you know But as you know it's not for either of us to have the final word on that; my words are there in black and white for everyone to form their own opinions.

Woman is a social term, female is a statement of biology.

My dictionary's definition of "woman" is "adult human female". Which dictionary are you using?
en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/woman

We're in this mess because of the confusion and conflation of sex and gender.

Sex is hardware. It's the physical "machine" if you like.

Gender is software. It's how we've been programmed to behave and think according to the kind of hardware we've been endowed.

You can't have software without hardware to run the software on.

Humans aren't disembodied souls. If I were to believe in the concept of souls, I would say that the soul is a deeper, metaphysical vibration of the somatic entity that is the body. If this is a valid view, we still shouldn't seek to mandate this belief for everybody, as it's just that - a belief. What I do want is moral and legal imperatives based on material reality and observable empirical science, such as women's need for rights, safety and dignity based on reproductive biological sex, protecting the environment based on toxicological studies of plastic pollution, climate science etc etc.

Likewise you can't have a computer program/code without a computer (or hard drive) on which to host it.

You need a primary concrete material definition in the first instance on which to hang the secondary ethereal definition. ie you need "femaleness" (sex) before you have "femininity" (gender). Gender ideology is non-sensical and tautological because it seeks to erase/do away with the very thing it identifies with in the first place.

Let's have protections based on sex, and protections based on gender non-conformity, but never make the mistake of muddling the two, as they're very different and have very different consequences. Recognise that there are two types of hardware and let people have their own individual customisable operating system to run on it. AKA "having your own unique personality" rather than subscribing to pre-written stereotypes and expected patterns of behaviour.

Which dictionary are you using?

I prefer to write the dictionary on the basis of how words are actually used in reality, not to dictate that reality on the basis of what was written in a book however many years ago.

It's a fail. Certainly should not have got a first.

How is it not destroyed? You need to explain if you are to be seen to engage in good faith.

Did you understand my posts?

Well no rat, woman is not just a social term and the changes being requested are not limited to the use of woman as a social term.

The changes being requested are legal changes re discrimination and human rights laws and so the discussion we are having relates to the definition of ‘woman’ in this context.

How is it not destroyed? You need to explain if you are to be seen to engage in good faith.

People can take me lengthy engagement on this subject however they like; I feel I've been consistent over the months.

Did you understand my posts?

Not sure I read them tbf; I'm skimming as I'm trying to work. Just trying to pick out things that catch my interest.

Rat
My link was to the Oxford Living Dictionary

Oxford Dictionaries focuses on current language and practical usage.

Our dictionaries and other language content are frequently updated, giving you access to the latest new words from fast moving spheres such as popular culture or technology.

You must have read them. You said they didn't destroy your argument. Was that not true?

OldCrone, changes to language have to start somewhere in order for them to achieve wide enough usage to be worthy of update. They start with people. Perhaps people like me.

Pratchet, the only post I remember was one simply saying my argument was destroyed; no explanation in it. I didn't need to see the explanation to know my argument is not destroyed, because even if someone here was incredibly qualified in the field I studied that would still only leave their opinion against mine.

I got a first for the expanded version btw, just so you know

I don't think anything you have writen on here has been worthy of a first imo. Not for a degree anyway. Maybe first prize for world salad and exceptionally deluded thought.

Rat
Can you ask me the question I put to you earlier? What word has the definition "adult human female"?

We need a word for this for situations in which we need to protect the rights of such people.

If 'female' is not based on reproductive role then there is no 'female' to identify with. Do you see, @ratrolypoly? What you have done is to destroy the meaning of the word female as based on reproductive role, and at the same time tried to reclaim it as something you can 'identify' with.

What you are doing is destroying a premise and then trying to use the premise that you have destroyed to prove your case.

Do you see that this means your definition is not only wrong, it can never be right. Empiricism doesn't come into it. It's wrong 'a priori' if you like.

In the case of someone assuming the role of Dad there has to be mutual agreement between a number of parties.

The biological mother and biological father have to agree on the terms of a third party being 'Dad'. A random stranger cannot wander into someones home and declare themselves Dad.

A biological father would have to sign away his parental rights for the self identified Dad to become legal Dad.

Remaining as a self identified Dad does not afford him legal rights over the child.

The child has to also be in agreement that this person is their Dad. If the child disagrees but the adult persists in self identifying as their Dad then who has the correction definition?

I guess my point is that any form of self identification does not exist in a vacuum. There has to be an acceptance from other parties affected by someones view of themselves that the identification is meaningful.

And we are back to words mean what I think they mean again.
Good luck legislating your way around that one.
I think overdrawn means in credit. Just going to ring my bank…

Destroy the term woman and you destroy women's rights built on biology because you replace with a concept of women being a social construction alone.

Women's rights are not based on how society treated us because of identity, but on the social consequences of biology.

You are arse about face in understanding rights and where they came from. You want to erase their foundations and in doing so undermine them completely to the point of useless.

If you cannot define your oppression because you have been stripped of the language to do so, you can not stop your oppression.

Women are being dehumanised by this linguistic manipulation. This process is well known about and studied. It's use here is very deliberate and has an aim.

Just cos you don't understand and see that, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

But it doesn't bode well.

I guess my point is that any form of self identification does not exist in a vacuum. There has to be an acceptance from other parties affected by someones view of themselves that the identification is meaningful.

YY, completely agree with you.

Put it this way: the trans belief system completely divorces reproductive role from 'gender/sex'.

They say they don't, but they do, because having a male reproductive system is no longer either a necessary or sufficient condition for being a man. It's completely irrelevant. Same with woman.

So you have destroyed the concept of 'man-ness' or 'woman-ness'. There is no 'man-ness' or 'woman-ness' to identify with.

What word has the definition "adult human female"

What's wrong with using those three word, if that is what you want to describe?

RatRolyPoly Wed 04-Jul-18 11:19:16

TLDR version: words mean whatever I decide them to mean. I draw my own patterns.

Why do transwomen have the right to say "I am part of your pattern I am coming in"?

But feminists don't have the right of reply back to say "you are not part of our pattern, you are not coming in"?

Sexism in a nutshell. Women must never say no to males.

I prefer to write the dictionary on the basis of how words are actually used in reality

This is how we end up with the sort of illogical nonsense of the current definitions of the word 'literally':

1 In a literal manner or sense; exactly.
1.1informal Used for emphasis while not being literally true.
Usage
In its standard use literally means ‘in a literal sense, as opposed to a non-literal or exaggerated sense’, as for example in I told him I never wanted to see him again, but I didn't expect him to take it literally. In recent years an extended use of literally (and also literal) has become very common, where literally (or literal) is used deliberately in non-literal contexts, for added effect, as in they bought the car and literally ran it into the ground. This use can lead to unintentional humorous effects (we were literally killing ourselves laughing) and is not acceptable in formal contexts, though it is widespread

Well, it doesn't aid clear communication (which, call me old fashioned, is the purpose of words unless you actually want to obfuscate or deceive) but it's ok for humorous informal use of an adverb.

Such sloppiness needs to be resisted when people start to misuse and warp words which have a clear meaning based in physical reality and which are used in important legislation.

Why does the word woman need to be replaced with three words rat?

And I think you know that this ideology is trying to co-opt ‘adult human female’ as well as ‘woman’...