Conversation between two philosophers: what does it mean to be a man or a woman?

[EIEIohmygod]

letter.wiki/conversation/916

An interesting exchange. Full version available on Academia.edu

Incredibly brave of Michael Hauskeller (head of philosophy at Liverpool) to facilitate this conversation. I imagine the backlash will be intense.

"But the claim itself is ontological: it is about what I am, and not about what I want to be or have, or how people should or should not behave towards me. And that is what makes it so interesting philosophically because it is not at all obvious what exactly it is that is being claimed here. For that reason, it is also unclear what would make such a claim true or false."

This has for me always been the central issue - those who hold that TWAW are making an ontological claim, which they (a) never flesh out (other than by assertion or by listing a set of sexist stereotypes) and (b) never tell us what the truth or falsity of such a claim consists in.

This is particularly clear with the "no true transwoman" claim often made vis a vis sex offenders for instance: the line shifts from "this will never happen" to "this hardly ever happens" to (when you point out that half the trans-identifying male prisoners are banged up for sex crimes) to "but they're not really true trans" without ever telling us how we could know the truth or falsity of someone's claim to be a woman.

I've only read the first two sections as yet, good so far especially Dr Lawford-Smith's part.

The other point you made was about hypothethical-you’s claim to be a woman, and how that connects to knowing what it is like to be a woman. I think this claim, when men make it, is enormously hubristic, and reveals a complete dismissal of women. It is ‘colonial’ in the metaphorical sense – it treats ‘woman’ as a sort of conceptual terra nullius, that has no indigenous inhabitants

That very neatly nails something we've been discussing here for years.

@MichelleofzeResistance

The other point you made was about hypothethical-you’s claim to be a woman, and how that connects to knowing what it is like to be a woman. I think this claim, when men make it, is enormously hubristic, and reveals a complete dismissal of women. It is ‘colonial’ in the metaphorical sense – it treats ‘woman’ as a sort of conceptual terra nullius, that has no indigenous inhabitants

That very neatly nails something we've been discussing here for years.

Wow, I wish I could come out with something like that!!! I think DC have fried my brain!

Really interesting. Holly in particular makes a lot of excellent points. Thank you for posting.

While I agree with a lot of what Michael Hauskeller is saying, it's interesting that he is making the same mistake that many men seem to make in this argument. Which is namely to assume there is a symmetry between man/woman, transman/transwoman.

We can all understand the asymmetry in race - i.e. that a white person claiming a black identity is far more offensive than a black person claiming a white identity.

Dr Lawford-Smith tries to point it out but you can tell he's just not getting it. At one point he even tries to argue that women objectify men as much (and in the same way) as men objectify women. I liked Holly's response: "Hah!"

Exactly that

Treats women with total dismissal

Holly: "You also said “in fact the vast majority of women objectify men sexually just as much as men objectify women”. Hah! I hope it does not seem too obnoxious to suggest that this might be an example of what I have just been trying to explain, namely some things being largely invisible to men, which allows them (here, you) to assume the situation is roughly symmetrical for the sexes. Girls start being sexually objectified by boys and men around the age of puberty. They are routinely subject to sexualised comments about their bodies and appearance, from people they know, and from people they don’t, e.g. in street harassment and catcalling. Many teenage girls develop eating disorders or self-harming problems in what is arguably a result of this treatment. Pornography, which presents a particularly distorted view of women and girls as things for men to fuck, makes this situation considerably worse. Advertising uses women’s bodies and women’s sexuality to sell products. In her representations in film and television she is generally presented as something whose primary value lies in her appearance.None of thisis true for men. I am sure you can find some examples of a handsome shirtless man being used to sell cologne or whatever, but this is nowhere near as pervasive, and with nowhere near the consequences, as it has for girls."

Well said.

It is the ongoing problem Holly points out: these issues are invisible to men, and so men assume they don't really exist and that there's symmetry between the experiences of the two sexes.

Men by the fact of being men have the ability to not be affected by or even notice much of the experience of being women. Which is why so many of the things women are saying about the experience of being female, the language needed, the space away from males, the safety and privacy and dignity aspects - are treated with such utter contempt and dismissal. They don't affect men, so they can't really exist, it's just women being silly.

See: Holly's comment about womanhood in the eyes of men being a conceptual terra nullis.

Thank you for posting this OP.

Men by the fact of being men have the ability to not be affected by or even notice much of the experience of being women. Which is why so many of the things women are saying about the experience of being female, the language needed, the space away from males, the safety and privacy and dignity aspects - are treated with such utter contempt and dismissal. They don't affect men, so they can't really exist, it's just women being silly.

YY, exactly this.

I would think a philosopher would be able to understand this asymmetry once it's pointed out. My boyfriend had the same misconception and once I explained it he immediately got it. It's really not hard.

But instead of admitting he'd effed up he instead patronisingly says:
You look at things from a gender-political perspective, whereas I try to do so from a gender-metaphysical angle.

I.e. "I'm trying to do big, clever philosophy here, not get involved in pedestrian gender politics"

Whatever dude!

Yes, he expects to have the discussion on his terms. And he doesn't consider the political angle, so it's not relevant.

Yes. He sounds good, like he gets it, until a pesky woman has a different idea!

You really would think he'd immediatley see, and acknowledge, what she meant!

@MichelleofzeResistance

The other point you made was about hypothethical-you’s claim to be a woman, and how that connects to knowing what it is like to be a woman. I think this claim, when men make it, is enormously hubristic, and reveals a complete dismissal of women. It is ‘colonial’ in the metaphorical sense – it treats ‘woman’ as a sort of conceptual terra nullius, that has no indigenous inhabitants

That very neatly nails something we've been discussing here for years.

Oh, that is a fantastic way of putting it.

I wonder if he had the aim of putting forward the arguments so that she could raze them? Maybe... We'd have to see/hear a spoken exchange for that I suppose

Hmm, I gave up after his initial letter. He’s a man because his body is naturally organised in a way that reflects and supports the physical, biological processes directed at the production of small gametes by that body. He seems to me to be significantly over complicating a simple biological fact.

If you are interested in the philosophical angle, I found this paper helpful: philpapers.org/rec/BYRAWA

Are women (simply) adult human females? Dictionaries suggest that they are. However, philosophers who have explicitly considered the question invariably answer no. This paper argues that they are wrong.

Interesting read.

Preens - I used the colonialism metaphor on here donkeys years ago.

But yes Michael doesn't seem to be connecting the dots. Me being female is a contingent fact about my reproductive biology. In a perfect world it shouldn't matter to other people's views about my personhood and humanity.

But historically that contingent fact about my reproductive biology has been weaponised against me, used to define me as other and lesser.

So when some men, aided and abetted by some women, try to redefine "woman" to include "men" this is both an ontologically incorrect move and also a political landgrab which seeks to make the voices of the oppressor class the loudest ones within any political movement founded by and for the oppressed class.

The ontological mistake is annoying in its stupidity. (Like including blue eyed people in the class of brown eyed people, or hamsters in the class of birds).

But it matters deeply and profoundly, with huge real world consequences (free versus compelled speech, freedom of association, the human right to be incarcerated only after due process and only with members of your own sex, the continued existence of women's sports) because of the political aspects.

bookmarking to remind self to read later

One possible reason might be my sexual preferences. Perhaps I feel sexually attracted to men and not to women. But most men who feel sexually attracted to men do not think that this is because they are actually women. They are simply men who happen to be attracted to other men. So this cannot be it.

He's clueless.

Thanks for posting. Interested to have a look at this later on today.

@DianasLasso yep you've nailed it.

I'm thoroughly enjoying the fact that a leading philosopher can be outargued by the women of Mumsnet.