'What is a woman' - the political question of our time.

[ArabeIIaScott]

Brendan O Neill in Spiked.

'The establishment’s fear of this question is proof of its political importance. It is not a daft question or a culture-war distraction, as talking heads would have us believe. It’s the question that tells you everything you need to know about someone. For if a politician cannot tell the truth about sex, why should we believe he’ll tell the truth about anything else'

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/05/09/never-trust-a-politician-who-cant-say-what-a-woman-is/

I like that article. I might shy away from that question because some people react like it’s a gotcha and you’re just trying to trip them up, but it’s not. The fact that they can’t answer it in a way that aligns with beliefs in gender identity is the fault of people adhering to postmodernist theories when they don’t understand it (not that you’re supposed to understand it).

I will ask it with confidence from now on.

I wish that more politicians were asked 'What is a man?'. THAT would cause a few issues I think.

Agree with poster above.

What is a man?
What is a woman?

Can we answer the two?

the non-answers you get to this question are utterly pathetic. any fool could throw together a decent response in a matter of seconds, e.g.

(1) well, the very fact that you've asked me shows that this is a question that's become contentious;
(2) and indeed divisive/toxic, i fervently hope for the short term only;
(3) there are some very fair arguments, and less happily some very poor behaviour, on both 'sides' of this debate;
(4) the well established definition of 'woman' is of course: A) the biological one, 'adult human female';
(5) an alternative view which has recently achieved a degree of popularity is: B) that the social constructs which have grown up around AHF's have taken on such a life of their own as to be more important than the biology;
(6) my own personal view is to prefer A)/B) [delete as appropriate, depending on the target audience];
(7) but of course I recognise that there are some [add a qualifier such as '(very) limited' if desired] circumstances where the other definition may be more appropriate.

Sure, puffy. I look forward to hearing those answers used shortly. 😂

Although:

'some very poor behaviour, on both 'sides' of this debate;' - there's only 'bad behaviour' on one side, as far as I can see.

What I find baffling is that politicians apparently don't prep for this question, despite knowing it's one that is increasingly likely to be asked.

It's not hard to answer. It's really not. It would be possible to argue without offending everyone, given a bit of thought.

But the fact that so many flail about and blurt out really stupid responses I think demonstrates the dynamic around the argument. It's not an idea that is part of 'discourse', that we can just offer our sincerely held thoughts. It's been cast as part of a religious-shaped creed that demands one supplicate one's thoughts and words to the orthodoxy.

So politicians are afraid to offer their own thoughts. The creed demands you only use pre-approved statements/mantras, Stonewall approved. And all of these are clearly absurdist bollocks that makes anyone using them look unhinged. Plus, you're not supposed to come up with your own answers, so they have no confidence at all in making something up.

Is my reading, anyway.

Thanks for the link. And I agree with what you say about the 'dynamic' of the argument and that it is not part of discourse. It is self-evidently a kind of creed with a learnt catechism response required.

I think it is a "gotcha" question though and is used that way.

Answer "biological woman" and you're a Trump-loving, Bible-bashing nutjob
Answer "anyone who thinks they're a woman" and you're a sexist, brainless but progressive moron

You can't win and you're not supposed to win - you're only supposed to pick a side.

Politicians should be trying to frame answers that allow carefully gatekept spaces for everyone.

It's fear as Arabella points out. Facts and science have been positioned as unsayable / bigoted. But politicians know that when they parrot the lies / fantasies / delusions that Stonewall et al demand, they come over as captured fools - so they bluster about faults on both sides and gotchas. Yet still they come over as idiots unable to answer what all but the most ideologically captured know is the truth.

"What is a woman" has become the ultimate litmus test to see if a politician is worth voting for.

@ArabeIIaScott
The way Sunak said "adult human female" with confidence and a smile when he was asked made me wonder how much prep work behind the sceenes had gone into those three words.
The question has proven to be a huge land mine for many politicians that explodes at the sligtest nudge. You can see the fear in their eyes when they get asked e.g. Starmer. The speed at which they run away from answering tells you all you need to know.
I wonder how many SPADs had to stay up late into the night for Sunak to be able to say those three words. That's probably 2-3 months of half a dozen humans working around the clock's worth of work to arrive at that destination. The thing I like most about it is that it's a very straight answer, sans any bullshit whatsoever. They have decided to tackle the question head on rather than try and perpetually run from it. The choice of the very specific three words instead of say "someone who is born female" tells you they are paying attention, and they want us to know they are paying attention.

Zelda: You can't win and you're not supposed to win - you're only supposed to pick a side.

It's not really a question of picking a side though. It's telling a lie or telling the truth.

'It's not really a question of picking a side though. It's telling a lie or telling the truth.'

Correct. It's only a 'gotcha' question if you're prepared to spout nonsense and deny biological reality. Zero sympathy for any fence sitting and arse covering

And it's the simple truth.

There is no way a male can be a woman. No way on earth. It's the bald, bare, stark, and clear fact of the matter.

I hope that the PM saying it will allow people to see that the world doesn't end when someone points at the Emperor and says 'he's naked'.

It is not a political question; it is a scientific/biological one.

At base it's scientific, but it's been framed as political. So I suppose the response shows whether they are going to give a truthful scientific answer, or a political bullshit one.

@OneMorePlant - agree:

‘“What is a woman" has become the ultimate litmus test to see if a politician is worth voting for.’

Absolutely. How some plonkers
(possibly a banned Word now. Does it really mean ‘penis’? Apt if so)
managed to make it fucking far right to state the simple facts of material reality when it comes to the biology of our species will never cease to amaze me.

Agreed.

It seems even worse than the biscuit scandal that started the unravelling of Gordon Brown’s premiership back in the day.
🍪🍪