Non-profit Aggressive discussion: what is a woman?

[SpannerInTheWorks]

This has come up on various discussions this week and got lost in the debating of other issues. It's an absolutely key point when deciding whether you personally subscribe to a version of feminism that includes transwomen or not. So I know it's been done before but maybe we can talk about it here?

Personally I think a woman is an adult female human being. I think the word "woman" relates to biology, and I believe that the experience of being a woman comes from the experience of living with a female body.

I don't think there is any non-biological "woman"- ness that applies to people with male bodies, although I do very much appreciate that both male and female people may be deeply unhappy living in the roles that our society define as being "masculine" or "feminine".

I am genuinely interested to hear from those here who disagree.

What is a woman?

People who agree with me, please can I respectfully ask you not to respond initially because I would like to make some space for people to post opposing views. However, I would love to have your contributions in the ensuing debate 😊

Aaaand autocorrect has messed up my title 😂 non-aggressive not non-profit.

All I want to say is, if ‘Woman’ doesn’t mean an adult human who was born Female, The word becomes utterly meaningless, along with the word ‘Female’.

I absolutely agree. The term woman is either a biological reality or it's completely meaningless.

Obviously if there was a non-profit debate then there would be no argument with Woman defined as adult female human!

Follow the money...

This is one question that gets constantly ignored, but I think to get in the debate on who get’s to be called a woman it’s a question that needs to be answered beforehand.

I don’t think it’s offensive for people to use the definition that everyone has agreed with for centuries. If you have an issue with that then you need to give an alternative definition, otherwise you’re telling people what to do and say without a reason why.

I agree with your definition of woman spanner.

When I say you, I don’t mean you OP.

I mean people who want to change and police language in relation to their beliefs.

So far I’ve heard:
A woman is anyone who lives as a woman, eg changes their passport/driving license to female.
Anyone who identifies as a woman.

So basically anyone then...

A woman is an adult human female. A female is someone who possesses all or part of a female reproductive system, whether some parts are missing or have been removed, and whether those reproductive parts function in the expected way or not.

So, female body and nothing more. Males do not have any or all of the above so they cannot be women.

I don’t think it should even by up for debate.

I want to know what is ‘trans’. What’s the definition? That’s what needs establishing before any changes are made to the law.

So simple. Woman = adult human female, of the reproductive class with the potential to produce large, immobile gametes, and gestate young.

Woman = adult human female.
Female = Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes. (From the Oxford Online Dictionary).

Basically, I believe women are adult humans who are biologically female. I appreciate that we can have different experiences of what it is to be a natal woman.

It is a biological reality that we cannot change our sex. Therefore men cannot be women, and women cannot be men, no matter the lengths they go to to take on the secondary characteristics of the opposite sex.

Women have faced discrimination and abuse throughout history because of their biology, not because they identified as women, as if they could have identified out of their situation to avoid the discrimination or abuse.

Woman is not a feeling, is not a costume.

I agree that the definition of trans is potentially more troubling, it is my understanding that it has expanded to include more than those individuals who suffer from gender dysphoria and who should be supported, as well as those who find it sexually arousing to force and be told that others agree they are the opposite sex.

Personally I think it’s a mistake to even entertain discussion on the fact that “woman” might not equal adult human female.

Instead I would argue that adult human females are entitled to have a word that describes them, for biological, medical, historical, cultural, social and political reasons.

Why is it acceptable to remove this word?

Yes

It's not up for debate

OTOH

What is a transwoman?

I think you're asking the wrong question to get people on board.

The question should be What is a trans woman?

Most people think a trans woman is a born man who genuinely believes he is a woman trapped in a male body, has undergone counselling and therapy and has, with the help of medical professionals, chosen to have hormones and surgery and live his life quietly as a woman.

And I think it's understandable why many many women have no problem sharing women's spaces with them.

A woman is an adult human female.

We'll need a huge bonfire of dictionaries, biology text books etc etc if this long accepted definition is to change. If self-id goes through, 'women's' changing rooms, sports teams, hospital wards, refuges etc etc will all have to be relabelled if the dictionary definition remains the same. Lawsuits galore otherwise. Bonkers.

If 'woman' is to change, agree totally that for practical reasons we'll need a word that defines adult human female and no other.

I think transwoman is open for debate as it's current wider definition means it's really just an umbrella term now.

Woman = adult human female, of the reproductive class with the potential to produce large, immobile gametes, and gestate young.

Yes, I think "of the reproductive class" and "the potential" is less likely to be misunderstood by people who read "of the sex that can" and say, "what about menopausal or infertile women? Are you saying they aren't women" in the way that we all know and love.

The relabelling is happening, information available online is replacing print - particularly with regard to institution guidelines etc.

I don't think there is any non-biological "woman"- ness that applies to people with male bodies, although I do very much appreciate that both male and female people may be deeply unhappy living in the roles that our society define as being "masculine" or "feminine"

This is key. There is a distinction between
sex = biological body (male; female)
Gender = social roles attributed to sexed bodies; roles which are historically & culturally specific. (masculinity; femininity)

Gender roles are mutable because they're socially constructed; sex is not mutable.

It is the basis of the oppression of women that certain roles and characteristics are thought to align "naturally" [weasel word, that] with our biological potential and/or capacity for reproduction.

Feminists argue that the sexed body does not and should not determine the characteristics of individuals.

True, woman is a biological term and the line needs to be held.

The shift in priority of gender over sex needs swung back around with sex centre stage. The rest is window dressing.

The argument as I understand it relies on societal perception. So, someone who could be perceived as a woman is therefore going to be treated as a woman and therefore such a person has part of the 'woman' experience.
Often accompanied by hypotheticals about perfectly passing transwomen or transwomen who transitioned as young people (who have therefore had much more 'woman' life experience)
I have at least a few issues with this. I probably have more but I don't have that much time tonight lol.

1. It presumes that transwomen pass that well. I remain unconvinced. I have experienced the uncanny valley effect with a better-than-most passing transwoman, who was a very nice person.

1. It presumes that if transwomen are treated 'as women' by society, then transwomen will therefore have no ill effects on women in women's spaces.

1. It presumes that if someone passes well enough (who decides?) then the women who will be sharing space with them have no right to knowledge that might effect their consent (ie, presence of a penis)

1. Wrt feminist theory, it assumes that women are oppressed because of a perception of their femininity. We are oppressed through the imposition of femininity because of our biology. An important distinction for a feminist board, I think. Male bodied people who present a feminine appearance may well have awful experiences that may look like 'women's experiences' but they are not the same, by virtue of the experience being absorbed through a male body.

1. Being able to name our experience is a vitally important aspect in a class fighting for liberation. I would respect trans people much more if they used their own words to describe their own experience rather than modifying our words and rendering us voiceless (don't tell me they can't, they invent new words all the time! C!s anyone?) Which brings us back to definition of woman please. And transwoman. What is the definition of transwoman? Can I, an xx female, be a transwoman? Can I be a femme leaning non binary transwoman? Why not?

Vitriol, thanks that's a great post.

Some of it is the "you can call your dad and he'll end it all" angle. If you're someone in a male body who chooses to be seen by society as a woman, that's very different to having a female experience. And IMHO is an incredibly limited and western-centric view: oppression of women in the UK and America may be mainly based on historic experiences of biology but in many countries there are horrendous sex-based experiences happening to women which are nothing to do with gender identity.

I've been told in online feminist groups that my opinion is secondary to that of a transwoman, because I (as a "cis" person) am part of the oppressor group and they are part of the oppressed. If you take your goggles off for a moment and squint, it looks very much like people with XY chromosomes telling people with XX chromosomes to shut up.

I think there are a lot of liberal feminists who think that this obsession with definitions is deliberately nasty - "we're in the woman gang and you're not, so ner". But IMHO you cannot have any meaningful discussion of these issues without defining your terms.

I've been told in online feminist groups that my opinion is secondary to that of a transwoman, because I (as a "cis" person) am part of the oppressor group and they are part of the oppressed. If you take your goggles off for a moment and squint, it looks very much like people with XY chromosomes telling people with XX chromosomes to shut up.

It does look like that, doesn't it? That'll be because it is.

We are oppressed through the imposition of femininity because of our biology

This.

Thanks for putting it so succinctly and logically.