Redefinition of 'Woman'

[InterestingUsernameTBC]

So this has been swirling round in my head for a bit and I thought I'd put it down here and see if anyone has any comments.

In order for women to accept a male as a woman they have to redefine what it is to be a woman in his image.

It seems to me that some women say, that's fine. I'm happy to accept your redefinition. That doesn't contradict my own identity as a woman. We're both women, you're a trans woman and I'm a cis woman.

And then there are others who say, I accept your redefinition of what a woman is but it doesn't fit with my identity as a woman so I must be non binary or a trans man.

And then there are women who say fuck off. I'm not redefining what it is to be a woman to suit any man. But how do these women hold onto their sense of self in a society that is seeking to redefine their identity and the language they use to describe it?

I feel very strongly that I'm not a cis woman. It isn't an identity that I identify with - referring to me as my sex class (woman) will be fine, thanks. I watched a video where a woman and a trans man explained to me why I should not be offended to be called cis.

Imagine telling a trans person that it's not offensive to call them their sex, use sex based pronouns and to continue to use their 'deadname'.

WomanhoodIsABirthright · Today 21:14
Why is the chromosome thing never brought into this?
Two x's = woman, end of

There was a very interesting Twitter thread by a scientist linked to a thread the other day. Maybe someone could find it. It explained that chromosomes are not the main thing that signify either of the two sexes.

Crocodiles, for example, are male and female, and females produce eggs and young, but they have no chromosomes. What matters are the relatively large gametes (female), and the relatively small gametes (male).

It is worse than "cropping up": the Cambridge dictionary has now changed the definition of "female" to include "trans female" in the examples for the definition of "female", which is referenced as an adjective pertaining to gender.
dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/female

Further down in the definition it is shown as an adjective pertaining to sex. But the first definition shown relates to gender, not sex. .

The Cambridge dictionary shows ideological capture.

And a circular definition.

It's a thought provoking question Interesting (and consequently shaping up to be one of those interesting discussion threads)

I also appreciate Redtoothbrush's powerful-painful truth post.

Several things come up for me:

• The understanding that has most made sense and fit for me, is that being a woman is a lifelong, developmental, embodied process. (Amy Sousa outlines this beautifully).

It's particularly powerful, as no man, at whatever stage he decides to 'identify' as a woman can experience and lay claim to this.

• For me personally, I've discovered that I've never felt as strong an identification as a woman (and I've never defined myself as a feminist) as I have in recent years during this crisis.

The threat itself is what has paradoxically strengthened and defined that part of my sense of self. Also, through exposure to powerful self-owning women, that I might never otherwise had cause to encounter, I have not only found that growing in myself, but have also felt a new and growing belonging to women, as a collective identity. (This is interesting in light of toothbrush's post about isolation/loneliness)

-I am most definitely in your third group, and despite this feeling like it's been a bit of a journey, I think I was there at the very start of discovering what's happening. Instinctively. (Without knowing or needing any feminist theory)

-When we are developing our sense of self, it's both an embodied and psychological process of learning where we end and others begin- our boundaries. This is an ongoing process over years. The two year old saying 'No' and 'Mine' is part of that. The teenager rebelling and finding their own way is part of that. Women, as a group, defining our physical boundaries and saying 'No' and 'Mine' ' I am not you' is part defining our collective sense of self I think.

Healthy boundaries and healthy relationships come from having a maturity that comes from a strong sense of self. This means not crossing others boundaries, or needing to be defined by (validated by) others. These are the things, as we all can see, that those who advocate for gender identity are doing. It's psychologically unhealthy and we sense and feel that.

When faced with an individual who does these things (friend, partner, colleague), it's disturbing and can rock our own sense of self, and it takes alot of courage, strength, and usually support to stand our ground, hold our boundaries and hold onto ourselves. In fact, for many if us, the rough diamond of our sense of self is actually polished through surviving and pushing against relationships like these.

We are facing this now collectively, on a societal scale, and I think the same approach holds true. Our sense of self (individually, or as part of the class of woman), might feel destabilised, but my sense is that we are strengthening it through our fightback to what's happening; by saying 'No', 'Mine' and 'This is me- you are not me'.

Apparently Chambers Dictionary has now got some bollocks about the word 'Woman' meaning someone who identifies as one. Now, I've never considered Chambers to be a real dictionary but the fact that it's still in existence means that some people take it seriously.

Transwomen are a subset of men.

Transmen are a subset of women.

Non-binary reject gender stereotypes in theory (but not in practice), whilst at the same time, push gender stereotypes onto others.

I think in addition to the really thought-provoking answers above, there’s an internal versus external component here. Internal: how we perceive ourselves. External: how others see us. How an individual’s sense of identity evolves is surely a synthesis of these - the external isn’t irrelevant. It may, as PP have pointed out, become less influential as our sense of self crystallises through childhood and young adulthood, but that formative tension - of asserting your personhood in the world, from each and every conversation with another being, to responding to more explicit challenges to group identity - is surely a lifelong process. And usually, I imagine, a natural & healthy one. But where those external forces become oppressive, the dynamic must become more complex. And who can measure or describe that? Re: woman, I do sense a corrosive effect - a genuine sense of loss - in, for example, no longer being certain that a “woman’s” achievement - or crime! - is, indeed, a reference to the class to which I belong, something in which to take a unique kind of personal pride or interest. And this is happening. Widely. We’re losing the security of living within a wider context of shared public understanding of who and what we are, at, it sometimes feels like, precisely the moment we’d reached a new level of societal recognition: relatively young laws re. money & property; the birth of women’s sports; the gradual normalisation of female leaders in politics, business etc. All so new, all so valuable - & now, the media, public and legal records of these fruits of centuries of work are being undermined, blurred, lost, even. It feels hyperbolic to say so, but we know it isn’t. We see it happening around us. Each loss hurts. Its hard to imagine there isn’t some kind of intangible cumulative effect on personal & public scales.

We must be steadfast in using the word woman to mean woman ourselves. We should always use transwoman for transwomen. Never use the word 'cis'! ( Well, IW is welcome to it since it's meaningless!) The more people use the words correctly the stronger they are.

Yes Catiette. I think you've articulated the importance of relatationship and the perception of others part in building a sense of self really well.

I do sense a corrosive effect - a genuine sense of loss - in, for example, no longer being certain that a “woman’s” achievement - or crime! - is, indeed, a reference to the class to which I belong, something in which to take a unique kind of personal pride or interest. And this is happening. Widely. We’re losing the security of living within a wider context of shared public understanding of who and what we are.

I think this probably reflects precisely the OP's question/concern in the post.

We can boundary and define ourselves strongly, as individuals and as part of the class of women as I said.
But yes, how do we hold onto that if that means nothing, or something different in the shared understanding?

We are right in the midst of battling for this now- and yes, it's deeply destabilising that we don't know how it's going to go.

To circle back to my points, I think it starts with each of us strongly owning ourselves, our boundaries, It's those that do that are making the most headway in the fight- by joining with others in groups that then strengthen their identity, and then hopefully (if we can get past in fighting!) the larger group of women.

(I know I was much more blurred, soft and doubtful of my right to assert at the start (slightly baulked at KJK's strong assertions)- female socialisation and all that. That's changed alot over thes years)

Part of the difficulty is that many women don't feel this way (the OP's first 2 groups). I don't know what impact/limitation that places on our ability to do what's needed.

Sorry. Stream of consciousness

Wellies post above crossed with mine and says what I mean at the end much more succinctly😄

I saw the thread too and it was great, I think the takeaway is that it is your genes that determine which sex you will develop into. And there is an almost perfect match up of which chromosome you find which genes on but in very rare individuals the gene have hopped chromosomes. Those individuals are still sexed and their sex is caused by their genes. So I think as a general rule sex is determined by genes and which genes a person would have is almost always predicted by chromosomes but every now and again aren't where we would expect to find them.

Another interesting question is, what is the definition of Gender? Maya F points out that it's an unhelpful term because it means different things to different people.

I think it's useful to say that gender as it's being used today (stereotypes and 'feelings') isn't real, it's nebulous, it changes with time, culture, location and person.

I'd bet the majority of people still use the word as a synonym for sex.

Therefore only reality based language matters.

Some great posts. DameMaud's comment about ourselves and our boundaries resonates.
I think it starts with each of us strongly owning ourselves, our boundaries, It's those that do that are making the most headway in the fight- by joining with others in groups that then strengthen their identity, and then hopefully (if we can get past in fighting!) the larger group of women

We have such potential power when we work together. This whole ideology is built on sand - artifice and pretence - which is unsustainable. I can feel compassion - especially for the young - who've got caught up in this.
But facts and science will always prevail. Men will never give birth. And millions of women world wide will not accept being eradicated in favour of a fantasy.

TofuonToast I've had the same idea. They'd probably call it a 'dog whistle' though.

Another point is they only want the word woman because it's ours. If we drop it they won't want it anymore.

I've just been watching Helen Joyce from the clip on the thread linked below

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4678427-another-helen-joyce-interview

and at 29.11 she says 'Do words describe reality or create reality?'

which made me think of this thread.

In answer to the OP - the word woman describes reality for me, so woman = adult human female.

Men who call themselves women want the word to create the illusion of their reality - if that makes sense? Or rather want to use the word woman to try to force everyone around them to see them as they wish to be seen by others, as if changing their label changes material reality.

The word woman is taken - if the men described above want to reject the label that describes them, that's for them to decide. But woman does not mean man or male in any circumstance.

Exactly!!

It might if boundaries are set before the definition was used. And also who it excludes.

Yeah! Cos that hasn't been done before, with the word 'woman' for example.

It wouldn't work. That last word would make it utterly untenable, bigotry, facsist etc.

You are assuming it being looked at from a logical position...

NO. Give them inch and they take a mile.

Look up a petition
Take gender ideology out of the Cambridge dictionary | CitizenGO

You should see what they’ve written for female (while omitting the no 1 definition of being characterised by giving birth, having eggs, relatively larger gametes).

Warning: Do not buy or use this fake dictionary.

All this is already happening, i.e., there are demands that 'mother' means anyone who identifies as one, and I have seen at least ten trans woman state online that they are adult female human beings.

The older meaning of 'mother' is now turned into 'gestational' or 'birthing' parent. I have not seen anything similar done to 'father'. No 'impregnating parent' written about anywhere in woke writings. I think Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (an American progressive politician) gave an interview where she used 'birthing parent' and 'father' in the same sentence, but I didn't see this myself.

Your last question is such a good one. I define myself as a woman because I inhabit a female body, because that affects my life both directly and indirectly, and because I have been discriminated, assaulted, and harassed for owning that body.

In the gender identity framework my identity (loosely described above) is entirely erased. If I complain about that I am the bigot. This is adding insult to injury.

But I agree with those who think that creating new terms would not work, because the goal of the GI ideology is to linguistically erase the female sex, so any new terms for that sex would be colonised in no time at all. The only stance is to state that 'woman' is a term which has already been taken.

What do you mean when you say that crocodiles don't have chromosomes? All cells need to store genetic information somewhere.