GC: Why can't the words man and woman be defined as something other than "adult human male" and "adult human female"? And why is it false to say "men can have vaginas/uteruses/etc and women can have penises"?

submitted by AllInOne from (self.GCdebatesQT)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I haven't got a GC answer for you, but I think male men, female men, male women and female women is descriptive enough and makes the distinction between sex and gender. I think the people who think gender is immutable and sex is fluid would not like it. I think GC people use 'men' and 'women' as referring to sex and gender, so it wouldn't work for them.

  1. I think male and female should only refer to sex. It's not how the words are used out in the wider world though.
  2. I think the words 'woman' and 'man' describe gender, so I need another definition but I'm fucked if I can think of one. Can you?
  3. Because it conflates sex with gender. Female men can have vaginas etc, male women can have penises. So, the organs don't change sex even if the owner has the opposite gender to usual.

[–]AllInOne[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What do you mean by "it's not how the words are used out in the wider world"? I thought male and female only refer to sex out in the wider world too? And if 'woman' and 'man' describe "gender", what do you mean by 'woman' and 'man'? Can you define "gender" and what "woman" and "man" mean to you?

Edit: Ah well, you deleted your account so I'm responding to nothing

Are there any GC here that can tell me what this TQ means by "woman" and "man" describing "gender"?

[–]Spikygrasspod 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Some feminists have claimed that 'woman' and 'man' describe social categories, not biological ones. For example, Sally Haslanger argued that a 'woman' is someone who occupies a subordinate social status on the basis of her actual or presumed femaleness. This 'revisionary' definition was supposed to help feminists find the people to whom feminism applies. I don't agree with the revisionary project, but it may help explain why some people define woman as a social role. This is different from femininity as a performance. Obviously, performing femininity will not necessary result in someone occupying a feminine social position.