So, sure. I am willing to… I don’t know if concede is the right word here, since I was specifically responding to a post which talked about the importance of everyone being on the same page about what the word woman means before being able to have an effective conversation, and my point was that the word woman is difficult to precisely define. But I completely agree that there are also situations where a precise definition is not really necessary. In fact, having thought about it now I would change my position and disagree that it is always necessary to have a strict, precise definition of what a woman is in order to have a conversation about women (I do hope nobody jumps on me for that. I never came here to defend a position against arguments, I only came here to have a discussion, share my perspective, hear other perspectives, possibly have my mind changed or possibly have it reinforced, hopefully broaden my understanding and see more nuance than I did before.)
Anyway, that caveat aside, I still do think that the word woman is ambiguous, and our colloquial understanding of what it means changes in different contexts. This doesn’t mean that no one should ever use it and it should be completely removed from our vocabulary (no one is genuinely calling for that and anyone who claims to be is doing it for views/click bait), just that strictly defining precisely what the word woman means for once and for all is not possible.
So, I used the menstrual products company as an easy example to reach for, but ultimately, if a menstrual company decided to advertise as ‘for women’, colloquially we would all adjust our understanding of what is meant by the word ‘woman’ in this instance, and there would be no misunderstanding. If an insurance company had a contract that said ‘we cover endometriosis treatment for women’, this is an instance where the use of the word ‘woman’ could be dangerously imprecise for a trans man who suffers from endometriosis and risks being denied coverage.
Okay, so sure, I understand what you’re getting at here. In the context where everyone knows what a trans woman is, using the term ‘trans identifying male’ is no more accurate, but in the context of a person who has never heard of a trans woman, yeah sure even I would probably say ‘someone who was born male but identifies as a woman’ in order to explain it to them. Then I would also add that ‘trans woman is the generally accepted term’. But there could also be contexts where even ‘trans woman’ is not accurate to the specific situation being discussed.
An example being the whole trans women in sports thing (making this a new paragraph for better readability). Many people have responded to me previously about this and the understanding I have gotten from it is that regardless of current testosterone levels, the testosterone present during puberty is what produces a distinct competitive advantage for trans women over cis women. I have no interest myself in debunking scientific papers, nor do I have the expertise to do so, so I will take this conclusion at face value for now while still being open to the possibility that other scientists may later try to replicate the experiments and get different results, or find flaws in the research methodology. So, taking this conclusion at face value, if there was a law that said ‘trans women are banned from competing against cis women in elite sports’, that would not be the correct way to word the intention of the law. I mean, I have even seen people who are advocating for this themselves specify ‘trans women who have undergone male puberty’ rather than just ‘trans women’, to make more clear exactly what they are advocating for (although if a law were being made, ‘male puberty’ would also be too vague as well.
I don’t know if I’ve actually explained my point or just made it more confusing, but I suppose ultimately I’m trying to say that I still think that the word ‘woman’ has no precise definition and is dependent on context, and in many situations that fine and in some situations it’s not and a more precise phrasing is needed.
so to your final question, I suppose I would say that in the example of ‘trans identifying male’ you’re trying to impose it as an identity. Whereas in the example of ‘menstruating person’, it’s merely being used to accurately describe a specific group of people for a specific context. No one is saying that you should identify as a ‘menstruating person’ when describing who you are. And I can agree that there may be specific contexts where describing a trans woman as a ‘male’ may help to facilitate understanding, like in the context of explaining what a trans person is to someone who has never heard of the phrase before. But in the context of someone who fully understands what a trans woman is talking to other people who fully understand what a trans woman is, using the word ‘male’ would be deliberate misgendering. And if there was someone who was trying to suggest that cis women should not be allowed to call themselves women, and instead that they should only ever refer to themselves as ‘menstruating people’, then yes I would agree that that would also be offensive. I have never seen genuine trans activists ever advocate for that, only ever click bait articles intending to stir controversy to increase viewership or someone advocating for terms like ‘menstruating person’ to be used in specific contexts being misconstrued to mean that all women should identify as ‘menstruating people’ and that the word ‘woman’ should be removed entirely from all vocabulary.