If gender identity doesn’t require a specific form of gender expression and it doesn’t require a specific body phenotype—both points of view that has been espoused by @Kimstu—then we don’t know necessarily know when we see it. That’s the crux of it.
I doubt it. I think it will probably shake out more like the use of “straight women” and “straight men” has done over the past several decades.
First we tended to assume in common social usage that “women” and “men” intrinsically implied “heterosexual women” and “heterosexual men”. Then as we gained more awareness of homosexual sexual orientations, we had some of those two-tier nomenclatures like “men” vs. “gays” (or, more typically, the h-word or the q-word or the f-word) and “women” vs. “lesbians” (or similarly substituted derogatory terms).
Then we just generalized the terms “women” and “men” to include all the variously-oriented subsets. So now straight women, bi women, asexual women, gay women are all subsumed under “women”; similarly for the various subsets of men.
We’re already seeing the first stages of that in the gender-identity version, with many people strenuously insisting that the general category terms “women” and “men” are inherently synonymous with “cisgender women” and “cisgender men”, and some proposing two-tier nomenclatures along the lines of “women and transwomen” and “men and transmen”.
I’m just choosing to leapfrog most of how I predict this evolution is going to play out, to wind up at re-generalized definitions of “women” and “men” as social gender categories including both cisgender and transgender people (as well as straight/gay/bi/ace/etc. people), all specified more precisely according to their particular subset(s) when such specification is relevant. (Along, of course, with some other social gender categories for nonbinary identities.)
I’m not at all trying to pretend that intersex and transgender are the same issue. I’m objecting that YWTF is incorrectly representing her preferred definition of “woman” as a universal and exclusive application of objective criteria. If those criteria can’t be used to objectively and consistently classify intersex people as men or women, then that definition isn’t as functional as YWTF claims.
Sure. But the question is, do we have a consistent, specific, universal and exclusive set of criteria for determining exactly what “some basis in physical reality” means? If not, you’re basically back at the prospect of arbitrating gender category by self-identification (which I for one have no problem with, as I’ve said).
Probably, IMHO, but I’m willing to leave it up to individual female-identified and male-identified people to determine what they consider its essential components to be. They seem to be doing okay so far.
If we end up with massive social paralysis because people are literally unable to figure out what gender they identify as, then we can agree that we need socially-imposed specific definitions for the categories. Failing that, I’m fine with simply using the unsatisfactory circular definition as a placeholder.
So? As long as the individual in question knows what their own gender identity is, I don’t see why I shouldn’t take their word for it.
Why should I expect to know everybody’s gender identity without being told? As long as people aren’t assholes to me when I make an honest mistake about their gender category, not a problem AFAICT.
Does that mean that an intersexed person is both a woman and a man?
Alan and Geneva are both intersexed people with very similar reproductive systems. Alan was assigned male at birth, and Geneva was assigned female at birth. Alan identifies fully as male. Geneva identifies fully as female. Do you agree with them?
I may come across as dogmatic on the “woman = adult human people with female reproductive system” thing, but that is because I’ve put some thought into this and it’s the only definition that is water tight.
A definition that allows for “looking like a woman” is problematic because what if I’m an adult human female whose body naturally looks androgynous? Maybe I have a lot of facial hair due to PCOS. Maybe I’m flat chested and narrow-hipped. Maybe I’m constantly assumed male. Am I not a woman? (to rip on Sojourner Truth).
On the flip side, plenty of men have “moobs” and have fat riding on their hips and buttocks. They may not have a lot of facial hair or chiseled features. Are we calling them women now?
I understand what you getting at. There are a lot of trans women that look physically no different than your typical woman. Our eyes are trained to gender someone based on certain visual cues; we cue onto them when deciding which pronouns to use. But making “looking like a woman” a qualification for actually being one is not only flawed in a logical sense, but also in a sexist sense. It takes us back to the days when to be a “real woman” you needed to have a snatched waist and dainty ankles.
Are you familiar with the “define a chair” philosophical question? Ever since I encountered that, I worried a lot less about having watertight definitions. They’re nice when they show up, but humans are messy and complicated and weird, and if I have to choose between having a watertight definition and being able to treat people with compassion and respect, I’m going to try to choose the latter.
They meet the requisite criteria to either be a woman or a man. So if by agree, you mean do I think they have a valid claim to their identity, I say of course.
Doesn’t necessarily mean I would know which pronoun to use if I saw them on the street, but that’s a completely different question.
But the only difference between them is their claim. Alan has male and female reproductive organs and says he’s a man, so you consider his claim valid. Geneva has male and female reproductive organs and says she’s a woman, so you consider her claim valid.
How is that any less circular than the definition others are advocating? Could I not set up a definition which is precisely as circular, “A man is a person with the ability to use language who claims to be a man”?
I’ve heard of the chair thing. I don’t find it useful when talking about people. Especially a subset of people who have been subjected to a distinctive pattern of discrimination that has put them in different position in life than those outside of that subset. These people need terminology that refers to them and only them so that they can act as a cohesive group, rather than a loose coalition of disparate interests and goals.
Having a water tight definition is useful for that.
That may be, but we aren’t robots. We can operate just fine with words and terminology that aren’t 100% water tight.
It’s kind of like arguing that all music has a melody, ergo rap isn’t music. If rap isn’t music, what is it? Maybe we can carve out a box just for that…or we can put it in the “music” category and just define “music” so that it isn’t so restrictive. After all, it’s not like the sky is going to fall if we don’t have a water tight definition of “music”. It’s just a construct.
“Woman” is just a construct. I agree with you that “women are people who say they are women” is a bullshit definition and no matter how much I like Kimstu, I’m never going to waiver from that position. But there is a huge area between what you are espousing and what Kimstu is espousing. We don’t have to have a totally nonsensical definition, but we don’t have to have a 100% water tight one either. If we put our heads together, we can come up with something that is less restrictive than Merriam-Webster, but isn’t completely meaningless.
You may not think “looking like a women” is a thing and you may even find this concept problematic, but I know you well enough to know that you know what “looking like a women” means. Most people do. So let’s keep it moving and stop sweating so much over having a precise, 100% logical definition. As long as we get a definition that 95% of humanity can get behind, we’re good. Sorry, I just don’t see your definition meeting that threshold. Maybe 50 years ago it would have, but not in the year 2020 when we’re finally recognizing that gender doesn’t fall into nice neat categories.
You digging in your heels on this is detracting from the good points you’ve made throughout the thread. Focus on the big picture stuff and let the more boring pedantic stuff go.
They have biologically supportable claims.
It’s not circular. Geneva isn’t a woman because she says she’s one. She’s a woman because her body has female parts. She was also raised as female.
I hate that intersex people are used as attempted gotcha yas in these kind of discussions. Even if intersex people somehow didn’t qualify for “man” or “woman” based on dictionary definitions, that doesn’t mean we should just abandon definitions all together and invent our own meanings for these words. It just means we would need to update the definitions to address intersex folks.
Can you tell me how society is supposed to operationalize “looking like a woman” when we’re talking about stuff like who gets into locker rooms, prisons, and sports? Who gets to determine whether this qualification is met? Since it’s a subjective determination, how is this dealt with to ensure consistency and fairness? It is in the realm of policy that I’m most concerned about,.
I don’t know how I’m supposed to use “looking like a woman” for anything except my own personal impressions about a person. Which has no practical significance.
I think we should have both unisex and sex segregated places (male and female) . I think if we’re going to keep instilling in people the taboo against baring ones genitals in view of the opposite gender, we will need to have spaces for women who don’t want to be around penises and men who don’t want to be around vaginas. That just makes sense to me. Otherwise, we need to stop perpetuating that taboo. But we should provide a third space for folks whose gender and sex don’t match and for folks who don’t give a fuck. Eventually, if things work out as the gender activists imagine they will, the sex-segregated places should fade into obscurity once everyone realizes that they won’t die if they pee in close proximity to someone with different sex organs.
I really do think sex segregation works for best prisons, though. We should set up special cell blocks for sexual and gender minorities to keep them protected as well as to protect others from them. I don’t see this as “separate but equal”. I see it as a reasonable accommodation given the historical reality of the importance of sex to human behavior. No prisoner should have to be subjected to the abuses that come from denying this reality. People who aren’t in the system can change at home if they are afraid to see the wrong genitals in the locker room. Women in prison don’t have any choice in the matter. I don’t think they should have to worry about waking up to their cell mate’s erect penis every morning. And I don’t think they should have to pretend that something like that wouldn’t bother them just so no one will laugh at them or call them names.
This would be my solution to those kinds of problems. Get rid of gender segregation but make sex segregation explicit. Create a third space for folks who want and need it. Treat the special cases on a case-by-case basis. And just try to get along in this brave new world.
That isn’t analogous. It didn’t involve redefining “men” and “women.” Taking away the assumption of heterosexuality still left the fundamental meaning of those words in place; your position is that those words should not mean anything, which is as far away as one can get.
You’re confusing two completely different situations. Assuming people were straight did not mean excluding gay people from their sex class, it meant just assuming people weren’t gay (or pressuring them into pretending they weren’t.)
No one actually thought Alan Turing wasn’t a man in the literal sense of that word, even though being gay wasn’t usually socially accepted. The problem gay men and lesbians faced wasn’t that people didn’t think they were men and women, but that they held men and women to expectations that simply were not just. Turing was universally held to be a man; he was mistreated because his society wouldn’t allow him the freedom to be a man that did not hold toa bunch of stupid stereotypes.
This is what I believe too. There is nothing in here that I see conflicts what I’m saying.
Just wondering: when you say “women” above, does that include males who “look like women” or does that refer to biological females. That’s the only area where I might be disagreeing with you, but I’m not 100% sure.
When I say "women ", I mean “individuals who have a female anatomy or pretty damn close to it, at least externally.” I’ll let you define what “pretty damn close” means.
I mean, if you had a son who transitioned as a woman as a teenager, had sexual reassignment surgery as a 21-year-old, and had been living 10 years as a woman before being sent to prison, I think you would prefer she be sent to a “female” prison rather the “male” prison, right? But I think most people can agree that the “woman” identifying male in full possession of his male parts and libido, who seems to be more gender “erotic” than gender dysmorphic, should NOT be in the prison for females. There’s enough “gray” there to say, “Let’s put this one in the special cell block in the prison for males.” I think we can take individuals on a case-by-case basis and not come up with blanket rules or definitions.
So make the definition based on that. Women are people who identify as women and who have been subjected to some parts of the distinctive pattern of discrimination that has put them in a different position in life than those outside of that subset.
Yes, but the difference between them isn’t their biology, it’s the claim itself. If the different claim + same biology is sufficient for one to be a man and one to be a woman, then your definition is exactly as circular as anyone else’s different claim + same biology definition.
I’m sure you do. The existence of intersex people disproves the simplicity of your system, and that can’t be fun for you. Rather than get mad at me for bringing them up, though, maybe question whether you really need a simplistic biology-based definition.
I see what you mean. I would not have a problem with a committee of some sorts looking at the situation and deciding on case-by-case basis.
But for the person who transitioned as a teen, it wouldn’t be their physical resemblance to a woman that would make me treat them differently. It would be their socialization and the extent to which I’m confident they transitioned due to gender dysphoria or some other cause unrelated to just wanting access to the women’s prison.
Alternatively, my group could keep the definition we’ve had since forever. Let other groups define themselves in such a way that doesn’t necessitate a change for other people. Why is that unreasonable?
I’m sure you do. The existence of intersex people disproves the simplicity of your system, and that can’t be fun for you. Rather than get mad at me for bringing them up, though, maybe question whether you really need a simplistic biology-based definition.
Better to have a “simplistic biology-based” definition than 1984 wacky doodle doo bullshit.
Talk about circular: in a question about how to determine members of the group, you suggest that the people you consider to be members of the group get to determine who the members of the group are. Besides the complete irrelevance of this (plenty of members of the group don’t want to keep the old definition) and the inadequacy of this (the definition has areas where it doesn’t work), it’s circular: in your proposal for how to determine the answer, you assume the answer you prefer.
It’s thoroughly and specifically not a reasonable approach.
Given that nobody has that latter thing, totally irrelevant.