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?

aloris· Today 17:57
+What do you mean when you say that crocodiles don't have chromosomes? All cells need to store genetic information somewhere*

Is referring to a post of mine the other day? I read that on a scientist’s Twitter thread where they were explaining what sex is which someone had posted on a FWR thread about a week ago. I’ll see if O can find it again somehow as that would explain it more.

Re: crocodiles and chromosomes/what is sex?

Zach Elliott

In just one simple question about crocodiles, I was able to challenge his assumptions, pique his interest, and establish a foundational principle: that sex is defined independently of the mechanisms that determine it
mobile.twitter.com/gender_dissent/status/1453174521637138435/photo/1

Surely it'll be that crocodiles don't have sex chromosomes, because sex is determined by the temperature that the eggs develop in.

You might have to scroll up the tread to find the crocodile part:

Zach Elliott
2 Dec
I had a discussion yesterday with an 18 year old male trans activist who thought atypical karyotypes like XXY were additional sexes

By asking one simple question, I was able to change his mind.

Here’s how 🤓
and,

“How do we know the sex of crocodiles?” I asked. “They don’t have sex chromosomes at all.”

With this question, I accomplished two things: 1) challenged his assumptions and 2) piqued his curiosity through an interesting example.

His response said it all.

They've not redefined it, they've undefined it.
What use is a category of anyone who feels like joining the club? How can anyone continue to justify special rights for those that choose to sign a piece of paper? How can I even tell whether or not I am a woman in the new definition? It's the death knell for women's spaces or sports or rights existing at all.
Yes I'm furious.

Yes, Rose, that is the answer. The thread goes on:
Wait,” he said, pausing. “Is that an actual thing by the way?”

Here, I knew he was now willing to listen.

I went on to show that the sex of crocodiles was determined by the temperature their eggs incubated at. His interest piqued more

and,

Now, he wanted to know more about how other animals determined sex.

After providing him with a database showing thousands of unique sex determination mechanisms across species and how they all result in males and females, I returned to humans..

and,

I showed him that what matters in human sex determination is the genes within the chromosomes, that genes determine the reproductive anatomy you will develop, and thus, your sex.

To do this, I showed him the typical path for a human male and the path for an XX male.

and,

The XX male example illustrated to him that, even though this male had XX chromosomes, what mattered to his development was the presence of the SRY gene.

This showed him that chromosomes and sexes were separate things.

It was then he started to change his opinions.

and,

He told me: “I see. Sex is the manifestation of the genes rather than the chromosomes in and of themselves.”

I responded, “Exactly!”

This is how teaching should work, leading one through the logic so the person can reach the conclusion themselves

The thread continues but I can’t copy it all.

"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."

I think this is correct. Also, well, I am in the USA but I think something analogous is true everywhere where there are legal protections for women and girls: pre-existing legal protections were based on sex, whether implicitly or explicitly. That is, at the time they were presumably thought to be explicitly sex-based, back when the categories "woman" and "girl" were understood to refer to female-bodied people. So inventing new words for "woman" and "girl", while sex-based protections become delinked from sex, just ratifies the de facto erasure of sex-based protections for women and girls. If women achieve political victories in terms of getting legislation in that protects them, then I don't think it's right to allow those decisions, won fair and square in the political arena, to be negated by subsequent redefining of the meanings of the words.

Good post.

And I’m also furious.

Re: the Cambridge dictionary being unable to say what that foul abomination of a word ‘female’ means, this Zach Elliot video is very clear on how sex is defined and how sex is determined and why there are two sexes.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=4Dd8Ow8bA-Q

Boiling with fury.