This doesn’t make any sense unless you believe that there cannot possibly be any criteria for the existence of trans women. Is that what you believe?
Are you serious? It is too circular to function as a definition.
Did you not learn this in school? A definition for a thing can not refer to the same thing it’s attempting to define.
The terms “son”, “daughter”, and “child” can be thought of as high level categories, but within that term we get more specific as necessary. We may say things like adopted child, step child, and biological child when more clarity is needed. If a parent finds out they have a inheritable genetic disorder, they will say they need to inform their biological children. If the parent finds out that laws around adoption tracking are changing, they will say they need to inform their adopted children. If they are getting divorced, it is understood that the stepchildren will go with their biological parent. We don’t think of all children the same just because they have the same high-level label.
If the trans community took that attitude with things like “man” and “woman”, I don’t think there would be much of a problem. But the problem comes about when someone says that everyone called man or woman are exactly the same and there are no subcategories or more specific terms. So if there is a sport for women, saying that anyone with the woman label can participate is going to be problematic. Part of the reason is that many terms like “women’s sports” and “men’s locker rooms” came about before there were many of these trans issues being discussed. If there were, I suspect the labels would be more specific as needed. So “women’s soccer” would instead be called “ciswomen’s soccer”. There might also be something called “women’s soccer”, and that would be open to anyone who considered themselves as a woman regardless of any biological aspect.
Then you should be able to construct a definition for “woman” or “female” that includes cis women and transwomen. It only counts as a meaningful definition if it doesn’t boil down to “woman/female = any person who wants to be a woman/female”.
If there are specific criteria that you believe must be met for a trans woman to actually qualify as a woman, then you start conflicting with gender ideology.
If the way millions are using “woman” to include trans women is somehow circular or meaningless, then there’s nothing to worry about - language doesn’t change for meaningless or circular usage. It only changes when words start to mean different things to large groups of people. I think that’s clearly happening - millions actually believe trans women exist, and can be defined (even if that definition might vary), and that they are women. But if I’m wrong, then there’s nothing to worry about in terms of language changing.
My last post to @Ascenray was meant for you.
If you believe there are criteria,you should be able to construct a definition for “woman” or “female” that includes cis women and transwomen. It only counts as a meaningful definition if it doesn’t boil down to “woman/female = any person who wants to be a woman/female”.
If there are specific criteria that you believe must be met for a trans woman to actually qualify as a woman, then you start conflicting with gender ideology.
Ascenray:
Even in this thread we have an example of clashing definitions of “American.” To me if means “of the United States of America.” To another poster, it includes Canadians. They are inconsistent, yet neither is wrong.
I can call Will Smith an American without any Canadian screaming at me that I should be calling him a citizen of the United States, citing the fact that Canadians are American too.
I can call Natalie Merchant a Canadian without any American screaming at me that I should be calling her an American, citing the fact that Canadians are Americans too.
And if 0.6% of Canandians and Americans demanded everyone else use the terminology they have come with up to justify their fringy perception of the world, the other 99.4% would ignore them and call them a bunch of loonytoons who need to get a fucking life.
Demanding that 99.4% of the worlds population refer to themselves as “biological females” and “biological males” is crazypants territory. If someone is seriously angsty over the fact that their bodies will be described as male or female by folks who have a need to describe their bodies in that manner, then they need therapy because they are in severe denial of their reality. They don’t need to change the dictionary. They need to get over themselves.
Easy (an example - not necessarily the only or final definition) - a trans woman is a person who was not born biologically female but has determined with seriousness (not flippantly or for deceitful reasons) that their gender identity is “woman”. “Women” are cis women and trans women.
I have spent the last few minutes trying to figure out what you mean, and cannot. It’s as if you’re replying to the wrong post. Can you clarify? How does my saying the word “marriage” has a fixed meaning imply I think the term “trans women” DOESN’T have a meaning?
Again, to clarify; I am the one stating words mean something. They may have multiple meanings and people can even interpret them differently, but a word must have some degree of fixed meaning(s) or it isn’t really a word at all. You are the one whose current position is that the specific word “woman” does not mean anything.
No, I believe that the definition (or at least one) of “woman” is “a cis or trans woman”. If you believe cis woman has a meaning, and trans women has a meaning, then my definition of woman has a meaning.
The very reason we’re having this conversation is because it is causing problems.
By lumping together women and trans women under the “woman” umbrella, it has allowed the latter group to feel entitled to protections and rights that were created for the former. Put another way, it has allowed males to feel entitled to everything females have.
The basis for female-specific protections and rights is biological sex. Physical sex differences that naturally exist between men and women that have directly or indirectly resulted in female disadvantage. Not gender identity that lives in the mind. Because they are not members of the same sex class, women and trans women do not have in common the one thing that defines female people: a female reproductive system. So the question is this: what are we saying is the common link between cis women and trans women, that is not rooted in stereotypes and pseudoscientific sexism?
Look, I understand what people mean when they say “woman” fits for transwomen in an informal, social context. If I’m knowingly addressing a group of acquaintances that includes women and trans women, I could see myself calling them all “ladies” and not blink an eye. But this kind of usage is not pertinent when we’re talking about rights and protections.
I think those things have meaning; “cis woman” is a nouveau term for “woman,” and “trans woman” is a man who sincerely desires to be a woman, or to be treated as such by others. I doubt you agree with my take.
From what I can tell, your position is that a woman is someone who identifies as a woman. That is a circular definition. It means nothing.
I should point out there that I’m not just trying to be a picky word nerd. There are extremely important points that emerge from realizing what the circular, meaningless new approach to what the word “Woman” means, and I’d totally write them here except that YWTF totally ninjaed me. Which is for the best, as YWTF is much better at expressing it than I am.
“Woman” already had a definition. Let’s take the definition from 50 years ago. Now add “and trans women” and subtract “trans men”. That’s it - a clear and discrete definition. That’s my understanding in how it’s used in the trans community, generally speaking.
And you can’t see how this definition boils down to woman = anyone who wants to be a woman?
This is counter to my understanding. I thought the basis for these protections and rights was the utter shit treatment of women and girls by our misogynistic and patriarchal society. I didn’t think biology had anything to do with it - just society and culture.
I can see how trans skeptical folks might see this, but that’s not how it’s meant. A trans woman isn’t just a man who wants to be a woman. A trans woman is someone not born biologically female but who has determined through serious thought and self reflection and investigation that their gender identity is “woman” rather than their birth assigned gender. That’s not a flippant decision, while yours implies flippancy and carelessness.
taking a deep breath and sitting down
The utter shit treatment of women and girls didn’t spring out of an vacuum. It’s not like the gods randomly flipped a coin and decided the chunk of humanity with XX chromosomes would be the group subject to misogynistic oppression from sea to shining sea. Come on, you have to know this!
Women are physically weaker than men. We become pregnant and thus represent objects patriarchs need to control to maintain power over reproduction. Objects don’t need to be educated, they don’t need to be independent from their male overseers, and they don’t need to be politically empowered. They don’t need to be treated like humans at all. Heterosexual males are attracted to our bodies, which also creates a power dynamic ripe for abuse. Our bodies do things that male bodies don’t (like bleed every month) and that subjects us to stigma that can compound other issues.
None of this shit would apply if we were biologically indistinguishable to men. It all directly or indirectly flows from our physical sex differences.
But this makes it sound like it was inevitable and a logical result of physical differences. Yes, biologically we’re different, in physical capability, reproduction/sex, feeding babies, menstruation, etc. But that doesn’t and never did require systemic objectification and a patriarchal system. That’s a fluke, not some inevitable logical conclusion. Those differences could have just as easily lead to a matriarchal society (and IIRC a few historical and even remote modern cultures were built this way) or some other sort of equal society.
So that’s what I mean by culture and society. Just like racism was never logical or inevitable, neither was sexism. It’s an accident of history that the dominant cultures today are mostly misogynistic and patriarchal, not some inevitable or logical result of biology.
iiandyiiii:
This is counter to my understanding. I thought the basis for these protections and rights was the utter shit treatment of women and girls by our misogynistic and patriarchal society. I didn’t think biology had anything to do with it - just society and culture.
This is like believing racism that black people have experienced racism for centuries is due to their tendency to wear bright colors and speak a little too loudly. Not the fact that their bodies have been deemed inferior, but due to how they dress and behave.
Women have been oppressed because they inhabit a different kind of body than men. Anyone who wears the “woman” uniform (dress and mannerisms) risks catching some of the oppression. But women can’t escape oppression by changing their clothes and acting like men. (We’ve tried it. It don’t work). As long as they inhabit bodies that have been deemed gross, icky, complicated, or mysterious by the dominant group, they will face discrimination, stigma, and marginalization.
Do you think there would be such thing as patriarchy if men were the ones who got pregnant while women were the ones who got to have as much sex as they want without judgment from anyone else? If men were the weaker sex, the one who bled every month, the one with higher pitched voices and less aggressive tendencies, do you really think women would still be wondering if we were ever going to get a woman American president? Do you really think “Grab them by the pussy” was a statement just about our society and culture? Or do you think it’s possible that women’s biology makes it easier for them to be perceived as walking pieces of baby-incubating meat and that this perception explains why our society is steeped in misogyny and sexism? You can put women in men’s clothing and teach them how to strut down the street clutching their invisible balls. But as long as they are in bodies that are deemed inferior (while simultaneously objectified), they will be discriminated against.
But they were “deemed gross, icky, complicated, or mysterious” due to culture and society, not biology.
This just sounds crazy to me. It’s like you’re trying to justify misogyny and the patriarchy, which I know can’t be right. So I must be missing something. It’s neither logical nor inevitable, and never was.