You're viewing a single thread.
Here is the answer to that question:
Until recently, a woman was defined as someone who was born a biological female.
Now, as definitions change, a woman is defined as a person who identifies with the role of the previous definition of woman.
Language is descriptive, not prescriptive.
That's not what the definition has changed to. Women can be women without identifying with that traditional role. A woman is someone who identifies as a woman. I am a woman, and I certainly don't identify with the role of a traditional woman.
I’d quibble slightly and argue that there’s a strong case that gender is also performative so if society generally deems you a woman, you’re also a woman.
External perception should not be a qualifier of gender. Passing shouldn't be required for a trans person to be a member of their gender, much as a feminine presenting man is still a man and a masculine presenting woman is still a woman, unless they say otherwise. Because it's all made up anyways, we can allow the definition to be as flexible as gender itself is.
But yes, gender is often performative, but rather than defining that in the terms of the audience, define it in terms of the cast.
Without external validation I’m not sure we can have gender.
Don’t get me wrong here btw, I’m not conservative on this issue, I’m a gender abolitionist.
As a trans person this strikes me as not really understanding what transness fully is? Like I know there are non-binary folk who more or less feel that they are beyond gender and feel like they have no internal gender compass - but I can't help but wonder if that is actually part of the cis experience as the more I talk to cis people the more I think the majority of cis people actually don't have a an internal gender. To them it is very much performative as they don't really have any internal reward system.
Gender to a lot of cis people seems a nebulous thing that they may feel attached to the same way they might be a sort of arbitrary team. They might feel praised for performing it "correctly" but that has almost nothing in common with actual gender euphoria. Ask what they think it would be like swapping bodies with a member of the opposite sex and they are usually more concerned with practically or on whether or not they are attractive in their new form. Most binary trans people are less concerned with being attractive as they are with seemlessly passing. It would be better to be an ugly but undeniable flawlessly recognizable member of their gender than the most attractive specimen of their birth sex. Sometimes that is because it is a matter of safety and security because passing means avoiding harassment but moreover it is because we do not care to appease our casual external viewer. The exact comfort is ours to benefit when we are alone because our drives were never externally driven.
Speaking as one who experiences it gender euphoria makes literary no logical sense. It operates entirely outside of logic and is entirely internal. It often comes mixed with guilt because a lot of the time the social conditioning that we should not like the things we do is at war with the truth that we have zero control about how we actually feel. The theory of gender performativity is incomplete and describes a fluidity - an almost liquid nature of internal gender. But gender can also be entirely and mandatorily rigid, enforced by internal triggers which slap and stroke by turns entirely independent of society. It is this rigidity rather than it's liquidity that most cis people seem to have a hard time grasping. Some definitely recognize it and have that same rigidity but it seems comparatively rare.
Being trans I recognize that my euphorias and dysphorias are not based out of performance. Performance is something I utilize as a tool to communicate people to not bring attention to the things that pain me and to make me feel comfortable. The company of people do supply a sort of reflective quality but that is just one way to be conscious of my physical body. If you call me by a pronoun set that references the physical things I hate about my physical experience of living it brings my attention onto those things. I could be naked and alone on a deserted island and the way I feel about my body would be the same. The things which make me feel generally bad are things like the way the weight of my body is distributed and my muscular structures which I can be aware of every time I need to move in a way more physically demanding than sitting or walking. I can hear my own voice and feel it insufficient and ghastly. I can see in any reflection the features of my face or shillohette. These things don't go away when I am alone, in fact oftentimes being alone with them offers less distraction from them.
Abolishing gender often is counter to a lot of the desires of trans people because it holds a language we can adapt to and profit from. Removing the limitations of toxic forms of masculinity and feminity is a universally good thing but removing the distinction entirely undercuts the actual joy to be revelled in embracing and speaking that cultural language.
I respectfully disagree.
To me the abolition of gender would be amazingly freeing.
It wouldn’t matter if I chose to wear a dress to work or a suit.
It wouldn’t matter if I chose the pink shirt over the blue shirt.
It wouldn’t matter if I wore makeup and nail polish and be a construction worker.
Yes, I could do all of those things right now, nothing stops me rather than the feeling of being judged by others, hence the ‘external validation’ of gender.
None of those things above are inherently feminine or masculine but a lot of us are taught that they are and judge others on those ‘rules’.
For me, it is hard to fathom how someone who experiences so much suffering from gender dysphoria can then reenforce that same gender expression in society. To me, I’d just rather kids growing up who wear whatever clothes and behave how ever they want to (within reason).
If all people didn’t perceive certain clothes, behaviours and ideas as feminine or masculine then people would just be people.
I won’t hope to imagine your own internal thoughts but I am curious, if you weren’t taught what a ‘woman’ is and what a ‘man’ is do you still think you would have experienced gender dysmorphia?
Also, as far as I know body dysmorphia is different to gender dysmorphia. I.e. I can identify as a man but still want to keep my vagina.
I’m also not claiming you wouldn’t have still had body dysmorphia even if gender was abolished.
In a philosophical sense of the strict definition, you're correct. I see no good reason to use our language like that though, as it would inevitably hurt trans people. I choose to instead use gender as an identifier assigned by each individual, as it's our colloquial definition and less harmful to trans people. In my opinion, if someone identifies as a woman, she is a woman, regardless of external perception.
And yes, I also agree that gender would be better abolished and relegated to a vibes-based, self-identified label for people that want it.
A woman is someone who identifies as a woman.
This is a recursive statement which gets us nowhere. We need to establish that there is some kind of basis, which is the previous definition.
Whether or not the statement is recursive, it is a basis. I see no valid reason to define it more rigorously. I identify as a woman, therefore I am. I identify as bisexual, therefore I am. Those are labels for nebulous social constructs, and don't need to be rigorous definitions. Any basis beyond "because I say so" would be inherently exclusionary. The entire debate over what defines a woman or a man is a pointless affair which harms transgender people and gender nonconforming cisgender people alike. I believe we should be abolishing gender, not trying to establish a basis for what makes someone woman or man enough. It's all made up.
My main point being: Gender is a social construct, and doesn't fit the complex reality of lived human experience. Let people define their gender in their own terms, for those that desire a label, and otherwise abolish it.
You've said a lot which I'm already on board with, and mostly besides the point.
People can define their genders however they want, but a person who identifies as a woman without doing anything else to project that identity is virtually nobody's conception of a woman is.
That's not true, what you're advocating for is gender gatekeeping and it's the same forced gender performance Republicans demand or else they'll examine your genitals before you use the bathroom.
At the end of the day, it isn't up to us to define or understand gender for anyone else. It's up to us to know and respect their pronouns. We don't get to define what being a woman is for everyone.
It's like the myth of sisyphus - what we bring to the journey is what defines that journey, and maybe defines us to some extent. Whether that's joy, singing, boredom, anger, all of the above, etc. What we bring to womanhood, whether thats traditional or not, is up to us and how we interpret it.
You're being hyperbolic. I'm not discussing pronouns, and I've stated elsewhere that I have no problems addressing people how they'd like to be.
I'm not being hyperbolic, frankly that's not what hyperbole means. I'm saying that as far as it concerns you, as an individual, how someone else defines woman is largely irrelevant, or whether they define themselves as woman is irrelevant. From an outsider's perspective on another person's gender, the only thing necessary to know is their pronouns.
Maybe it would help to think of gender as a type of artistic expression. Certainly we use fashion and makeup artistically to express gender. And just like we might say "that's not goth," and then end up with pastel goths as a whole vibe, we also get femboy transmen and dyke/butch transwomen and a bunch of other variations that are possible. We can no more define what a woman or gender is to an individual experiencing it, than we can define what is art to someone experiencing it.
what you're advocating for is gender gatekeeping and it's the same forced gender performance Republicans demand or else they'll examine your genitals before you use the bathroom.
I am not advocating for is not part of the same performance of examining peoples genitals. You are just being hyperbolic.
No, I'm not. Saying gender must be perfomed to the traditional binary in order to be recognized as the gender you state is exactly what Republicans are arguing with their genital inspections.
They look at a woman or man and say "that's not woman or man enough!" This thinking is inappropriate and leads to abuse like genital inspections. We are not entitled to placing gender onto someone else. We accept it from the other person as they define it.
Sure, we might project our experience of gender onto someone and assume their gender. But that doesn't mean our projection is the reality of what gender must be for that person.
I don't think you mean it's a recursive statement, are you trying to say it's a circular definition? If we instead changed the statement to "A woman is any person who identifies as such," thus only using the word 'woman' once, does this fix your criticism of this definition? Does this mean you no longer need an arbitrary basis to define women?
It's an acceptable definition. A circular definition would be "A woman is a woman." Instead, she's defining a woman as someone who identifies as a woman. That's not circular. You just don't like it for whatever reason (you have yet to define what a woman is yourself despite thinking a different basis can be established).
If we change the definition to "a woman is any person who identifies as such", nothing changes for me.
A circular argument involves multiple steps and loops back to the start. For example "God is infallible > the Bible says so > the bible is written by God > God is infallible"
What I believe is this:
If the definition of a woman is "a person who identifies as a woman", then what that means is "a woman who is a person who identifies as a woman (a person who identifies as a woman (a person who identifies as a woman ...)))
So I feel right to call it a recursive linguistic issue.
It's not recursive, did you read the example I linked? It's more like this:
A person has gone bankrupt when they declare bankruptcy.
This definition is specifically highlighting the condition of declaration being necessary to achieve the word being defined, and who is doing it. The declaration is what makes it existant.
Or
Miss USA is the person who is awarded the Miss USA title by judges.
Again here hilighting that it's an awarded position and who is awarding it.
If you think it can be more specific, go ahead, but you have been unable to give me any kind of satisfactory definition for woman yourself.
A doctor is anyone who is declared a doctor by an educational institution.
Hilights declaration and who is doing it.
A woman is anyone who identifies themselves as a woman.
Hilighting that identifying yourself is the key piece of this definition. A doctor isn't anyone who calls themselves a doctor, right? Not just anyone can be a doctor just because they declare it. But indeed anyone can become a woman and that the entire point of the emphasis of this definition.
Why do we need to establish a basis if it's all made up anyway? For what purpose?
Because we use words to identify things.
Okay, so then why do we have a word for woman? What is the intention of that category? Is it really necessary to define anyway? If not, why does it matter what a woman is except its what she calls herself?
We have a word for woman because it is a useful descriptor. The intention of the category is to presuppose useful information about a person. In some situations it is necessary to define. No need to answer the if not question.
presuppose useful information about a person
Yes, and in your opinion, what specifically is that information?
Well if someone says to me "that woman is suspicious" and there are two people who present as men, and one who presents as a woman, then I'm going to keep my eye on the woman.
This isn't a programming class, dude.
I mean, are you worried about definitions that are circular because A depends on B depends on C depends on A? No, you're not. No one has ever complained about this.
People are complaining about it, it's the whole point of this post. If saying "a woman is someone who identifies as a woman" was a sufficient, then we wouldn't be talking about this.
It is sufficient.
It's not recursive.
No one complains about wider circles: A -> B -> C -> A.
This is a made up problem.
I don't accept the assertion that your definition isn't recursive.
This is like someone who says they believe in God, because their definition of God is 'The Universe'
That's cool, define God however you want. But it's not a very helpful definition when the majority of people are using that word in a very different way.
Remember, language is descriptive, not prescriptive.
Let's try an experiment, hm.
"I am not a woman."
Using the definition "a woman is someone who identifies as a woman," would you call me a woman.
When you say "call you a woman".
Do you mean, "would I personally agree with the definition?", or "would I refer to you as a woman in public?".
If it's the former, then you should know I don't use that definition.
And if someone asked me to refer to them as a woman, I would, no problems.
If it's the former, then you should know I don't use that definition.
"Remember, language is descriptive." You only need to know how I'm using it.
So, using my "recursive" definition, is it correct or not correct to call me a woman. Is it possible to derive an answer from the information given to you.
"Beer is good for your health"
Assuming the word "good" actually means "bad", then the statement is correct.
But I'm sure you still disagree that "good" actually means "bad", because it isn't helpful for describing what either of those words mean.
I believe you are prescribing a word, rather than letting it be descriptive. Furthermore, even if it was descriptive, I am not convinced it describes anything accurately, and is functionally useless because of its recursive nature.
In any case, can we say that your experiment wasn't very good because we have failed to discern anything? Have you got any other experiments lined up for me?
There's no real issue with recursive (self referential) arguments in philosophy or math. An example being the Fibonacci Sequence. I'm going to assume your criticism for this is that you, like many conservatives, think this definition is circular.
The following definition is not circular:
A woman is somebody who says they are a woman.
This definition proposes a test, "do they say they are a woman?", to determine if somebody is a woman (according to the given definition). This test can be performed without needing to circularly apply the definition of the term "woman" ─ because we don't need a definition of "woman" to know whether or not somebody says they are a woman.
You may argue it is not a useful definition, because it does not depend on what the person who says "I am a woman" means by the word "woman", only that they use that word to describe themselves. Others will disagree. But the definition itself is not circular.
Perhaps it will help to make an analogy with a similar non-circular definition which was used historically, though is no longer used in modern times, but the definition was not contentious and I am not aware of anybody seriously arguing that the definition was invalid due to circularity.
Before marriages had legal status in modern law, it used to be that a husband and wife became married in a ceremony, in which a religious leader declared "I now pronounce you husband and wife". This pronouncement itself used to be what made two people husband and wife, so if two people had not been married in such a ceremony where such a pronouncement was made, they would not be husband and wife.
So the definition of "husband" and "wife" included that the husband and wife had been pronounced as such, by the power vested in whoever officiated wedding ceremonies. (There were other aspects to the definition as well, but this criterion was required.) Does this mean that until modern times, marriages were meaningless, because being a "husband" or "wife" depended on a pronouncement being made, where the pronouncement itself necessarily included those terms which were defined by the pronouncement?
Of course not. This definition is likewise not circular, because we can apply the definition to determine if two people are husband and wife ─ i.e. has such a pronouncement been made by someone qualified to make it? ─ without having to more deeply investigate the meaning of the words in that pronouncement. The fact of the pronouncement being made, regardless of its meaning, is enough to satisfy the definition.
Oh, I was looking for something like this. The husband and wife example is really good.
Holy gish gallop.
Just engage with me as a person instead of a place to throw text at.
That's fine, if you can't keep up with the few paragraphs I will accept your resignation and defeat. It's cool I won here and we can agree "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman," is a good enough definition for women.
"Biological female" has always been a construct, not a social construct but a scientific one.
Little known fact is that "gender" was adopted initially into parlance to try and rope off a certain arbitrary binary definition of sex before it was applied to social category. Biologically speaking "man" and "woman" was being shown to be way more vibes based than originally thought. An individuals chromosomes, hormonal balance, reproductive capability, outwardly visible genetalia and secondary sex characteristics were way more variable than a strict binary to the point where sex really was being looked at as more of spectrum. In a last ditch effort to preserve the idea of a sex binary the idea of a sort of model man and woman was derived as "gender" where everyone who didn't fit neatly into those arbitrary boxes was looked at as essentially a deviation from the norm instead of basically just being normal in and of themselves. Basically 2 out of every hundred people are born with some sort of intersex trait and there are likely more since a lot of people learn they have some sort of intersex trait by accident. Like there are "biological" men out there who have uteruses or overies just floating amongst their other organs completely undiscovered until they get some kind of medical imaging done that realizes that it's not just a benign tumour or a wonky bit of intestine.
When people say the the definition is a wobbly gray area they fully include the biological component. Even if you are talking about cis people there is no all encompassing biological archetype which doesn't exclude some cis women.
identifies with the role of the previous definition of woman.
So what is the present definition of a woman?
A person who identifies with the role of someone who is historically a biological female
What about biological females in history who identified as, or at least presented as, male?
I suppose it really depends on the culture of the time. But if we're talking about recent western perceptions, then the average person probably wouldn't accept that gender and sex are different.
wouldn’t accept that gender and sex are different
because in most cases it isn't.
Right.