QT (but anyone who can answer): is there a consensus within the trans movement/liberal feminism on the definition of 'woman'? And what is the source of said definition?

submitted by SnowAssMan from self.GCdebatesQT

I may have asked this on the old sub, but anyway.

I ask, because I've heard the same definition given by several different people. It goes something like "a woman is someone who says they are a woman". Is this, or equivalent the official unofficial definition? Does it have a source?

all 37 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Spikygrasspod 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Usually they kick the can down the road by positing 'gender identity'. If you'd like to read a very explicit attempt to formulate a trans inclusive definition of woman by a philosopher (they who spend their days attempting to define things) I can recommend Katharine Jenkins's "Amelioration and Inclusion". I consider it an uncommonly clear statement of the 'transfeminist' position, and an incredibly effective reductio ad absurdum of said position.

[–]DistantGlimmer 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I don't know I just saw a post by a trans person saying "trans people who make no attempt to pass are still trans and just don't care about conforming to their gender."

So i t really seems like they have no coherent definition, not even one based on gender stereotypes. Reminds me of the old "who's on first?" routine.

"What is a woman?" "Anyone who identifies as a woman" "Who can identify as a woman?" "An adult of either sex with a female gender identity." "You mean to say all self-identified women can identify as women?" "Yes." :)

Thanks for the source though.

[–]Spikygrasspod 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yep, 'passing' and 'conforming' are gender performances, not gender identity (sorry! there are about five definitions of "gender"). Gender identity is innate, so they say. In ordinary TRA speak, gender identity is an innate 'sense'. Though 'sense' here obscures whether this mental state is more like a physical sensation, a belief, or a wish. In more rarified academic discussions, gender identity is sometimes defined in terms of 'norm relevancy'. In plain English, it means people perceive gender norms appropriate to the opposite sex as actually applying to them. So a male has a deep feeling that norms of femininity somehow apply to him, regardless of whether or not he conforms with them. Just like women know that norms of femininity apply to them, even if they resist. This might be the intellectual basis of claims that trans women don't experience male socialisation because they interpret it as not applying to them. 'Norm relevancy' is what Jenkins goes for in "Amelioration and Inclusion". It's ultimately incoherent. If you're interested, Bogardus responds with a pretty comprehensive take-down in "some internal problems with revisionary gender concepts".

[–]anonymale 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

norm relevancy

That's my next social media username right there.

[–]SilverSlippers 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Most seem to believe that anyone who claims to be a woman is a woman.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I’m not QT, but I guess I’ll try to answer. I feel like in real life “a woman is some who says they are a woman” is like the best QT definition because if you question whether someone is a woman beyond that you are considered transphobic. Other definitions would be “someone with a female gender identity”, “someone with who identifies with femininity” or “someone with a female body map”. I feel like they all have problems. This question has been asked a like a million times on the Reddit sub and there is never one that fully makes sense that QT wouldn’t think was exclusionary.

[–]valleyoftherogue 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The definition of what constitutes a "man" is never a subject for debate.

That is the answer.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Because GC never asks that question.

[–]comradeconradical 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

GC doesn't ask this as often because the common TRA slogan is TWAW.

But, TMAM is gaining traction, so perhaps we will get to see more debate on what it means be a man, instead of only focusing on the ever prevalent female erasure.

[–]luckystar 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

(Neither GC nor QT but I lean GC): They always say it's a social construct, like money (I've also seen "Define a Tuesday"). The thing is we can easily define those other social constructs. Money is an item, usually paper or little pieces of metal (though often in electronic form these days), that serves the purpose of holding value, thus facilitating the trade of goods and services by not requiring every transaction be a direct barter. Tuesday is a unit of our method of measuring time, that ultimately relates to the rotation of the earth, which is used to identify a specific time unit in the future or past (or present) in order to communicate time related information.

The best I can do for woman (using QT-ish logic), is that it's a specific social role that we associate with adult human females in like 99% of cases, but that a trans woman may assume this social role by changing the appearance of their secondary sex characteristics (and sometimes primary sex characteristics, though we don't tend to use genitals to perceive sex in public situations), their attire/hairstyle/other adornments (makeup, jewelry, etc) to the point that society will treat them as they would an adult human female. This is more truscum/transmed logic but the best I can do. Whether we like it or not, there certainly is a social role for those who are perceived to be female. We may dislike this stereotyped role and want to abolish it, but its existence is a reality (same as how racism exists even if we disagree with it). The social role based definition also accounts for things like -- passing trans women may actually experience some forms of sexism that a woman would, e.g. I'm sure Blaire White has been catcalled or harassed by strangers who didn't know she was biologically male, purely based on her secondary sex characteristics and presentation fulfilling enough of what society views as a "woman" to the point that an untrained observer cannot differentiate her biological sex.

The biggest point I see in their favor on this is that while the complete abolishment of gender roles would probably be preferable, in the interim the dysphoric males can best manage their condition by meeting society's expectations for women to the point where they are most often perceived as a woman, reducing the pain they experience from gender dysphoria.

The other argument I'm not totally swayed on but do find a bit interesting, is that if we use a definition of "sex" that includes more than just chromosomes:

In humans, biological sex is determined by five factors present at birth: the presence or absence of a Y chromosome, the type of gonads, the sex hormones, the internal genitalia (such as the uterus in females), and the external genitalia.

(lifted from Wikipedia). With the exception of chromosomes, the rest can be changed. They're not changing from "male" to "female" per se, but they may remove several "male sex" markers (remove testicles/penis, change hormones), so are they still "male"? As I said I don't like this argument because it also introduces the idea that anyone could be "more" or "less" male/female (it would imply for instance that a woman with a hysterectomy is "less of a female"). Just noting that it is an argument I have seen before.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

It's pretty easy for anyone who isn't QT to have a definition for words like money, or Tuesday, or woman, since we've got this thing called the dictionary that does all that for us. I wonder if anyone has ever been "gotcha'ed" by those questions.

A rather convincing transvestite or cross-dresser, I imagine, can also experience street sexism. I guess that, instead of believing that one can be disguised as a woman, they'd prefer to believe that 'woman' is a disguise.

Someone who has had a hysterectomy needed to have a uterus to begin with, having had your uterus removed therefore doesn't compromise your female status, as only someone who is female can get their uterus removed. Same logic goes for hormonal & surgical transitioning. If you have, or had male gonads then you're male. Any intervention makes you male, who has had said intervention. This seems more about the definition of female, than of woman though.

Thanks for the response.

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

I guess that, instead of believing that one can be disguised as a woman, they'd prefer to believe that 'woman' is a disguise.

whoa, brilliant insight! the way you said that makes me think that it's also a function of denial. They just refuse to accept the reality that they are not and never will be female. Imagine how much entitlement and arrogance someone must possess in order to believe that they have the power to alter reality. It's mind boggling.

[–]luckystar 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Interesting point about the cross dresser. I've honestly never seen any that weren't pretty obviously their birth sex since usually they don't get hormones/surgeries which help with the secondary sex characteristics. But I suppose it could be possible, especially if they're androgynous to begin with. So if we use the social role definition, I suppose they temporarily fill that social role? Just very briefly or inconsistently, whereas transsexuals fill the social role as often as possible.

So I've heard this point about sex being determined at birth, and as I said I'm not super sympathetic to the "you can change your biological sex" argument to begin with, but I think the best rebuttal I've heard for that one is to wonder why a person's traits at birth should be used as a baseline for describing that person later in life. We change many ways throughout life and usually your current iteration is the most relevant one: we're born infants but don't continue to call ourselves infants in adulthood, we'd call a person with blonde dyed hair blonde rather than focusing on "well (s)he's actually a brunette", a person who loses a leg in an accident isn't still considered able bodied just because they were born able bodied. So if a male person doesn't have testicles anymore, is it still relevant to focus on the fact that they had them at one point?

As I said I don't fully agree with that argument, but mostly because that logic also implies that a woman is "less of a woman" if she involuntarily loses one or more of the characteristics used to determine that she was female at birth (or vice versa for a man), and that just feels wrong to me. If I was comfortable with the idea that someone could be "more male" or "more female" by checking off those checkmarks on the list of ways of determining sex, then I think it'd be fair to at least say that a person who has transitioned is a mix of both sexes, neither wholly male nor wholly female. But since that logic has weird implications for the 99.7% of us who are cis I really don't think it's a great idea.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So trans-women who don't pass are socially cross-dressers?

The person who has lost a leg is still a biped, the fact they are disabled is obvious, but it doesn't change what (noun: biped) they are, only what kind (adjective: disabled) they are. Hair colour is beyond trivial.

There is little else more female than having had a hysterectomy. The female-status of a woman who has had her uterus removed, is no more compromised than that of a woman who isn't currently pregnant.

[–]luckystar 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Good question. I should probably clarify that I think the cases in which trans women actually fill the social role of women are very rare, because many (most?) trans women do not "pass". Frankly I find it hard to believe that people actually view non passing trans women as women. They might say so to be polite, or because they are unaware of their subconscious bias. But the biological sex and gender role socialization pre-transition influence both the individual's behavior and the way they are treated by others. So it's hard for me to say your typical Gamestop Ma'am is a woman even socially because everyone is going to interact with them as they would a man, not a woman.

One example I find really interesting is the case of the trans "woman"/non binary/hot mess that was the leader of Black Trans Lives Matter, Cherno Biko. Biko sexually assaulted a trans man and made weird comments about wanting the trans man to bear his babies. Even though both of them are trying to assume the social role of the opposite sex, ultimately their interactions more closely mirror those of their biological sex. More info here: https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/transwoman-activist-cherno-biko-confesses-to-raping-a-transman.1068515/ About 3/4 down the page there are screen caps of their text messages, and if you read them without any previous information, it's immediately obvious who is female and who is male (in terms of biological sex). This isn't an isolated case either. So no I don't think assuming the social role of the opposite sex is as easy as some trans people think it is.

[–]theblackfleet 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Excellent response, especially the end part about hysterectomies.

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

The problem with using "anybody who performs the social role of a woman is a woman" is twofold. First, it's circular (so automatically invalid). Secondly, the vast majority of transwomen tend to act like the worst of men, so they are failing at their own crappy definition. They are the most egotistical, arrogant, entitled, and completely oblivious when it comes to the most "womanly trait" there is -- expressing empathy and concern for others.

Empathy with women would involve noticing that most women do not want penises around when we are disrobing or otherwise vulnerable. Concern for women would be expressed by fighting alongside women to keep penises out of places where we are disrobing or otherwise vulnerable. They fail spectacularly on both counts.

[–]luckystar 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well, we can define assuming the social role of a woman in two ways: the first is going to be gender stereotypes and things GC generally don't like. As I said, even if you dislike those stereotypes, they still are there. MTF can mimic those stereotypes -- again I'd say Blaire White is a good example of this, her way of dress, makeup, personality, and mannerisms resemble a "stereotypical woman".

Secondly there is a physical/biological aspect to it, to the extent that MTF change their body (breasts, FFS, hormone balance etc) -- these are man made changes but they are material changes in one's body that makes people more likely to view them as female than as male. I think of the secondary sex characteristics in terms of beards and breasts -- if you see a person with a flat chest and a beard, almost everyone is going to call them "sir" even if the rest of their traits seem feminine/they are biologically female, because the beard so strongly signals "male" to people. (Yeah yeah GCers can tell I get it-- I'm talking about your average person on the street who hasn't thought very deeply about trans people and aren't particularly looking out for signs of that). Conversely if you see a clean shaven person with breasts, even if they seem male otherwise, the average person is going to assume they are a woman, because men simply don't have protruding breasts under normal circumstances.

For the second point, I fully agree and this is what actually drove me closer to GC than QT as a former full on "trans ally". However, it is important to note that not literally all trans women act the way you're describing. That's the loudest, most offensive way, and it's become the face of the trans rights movement (probably exactly because they are males that like to domineer discussions and center them around themselves). But there do exist trans women who do try to actually act like what society would expect of a woman-- we hear less from them because by definition they aren't bossy or loud. Many of these trans women call themselves transsexual and generally understand they're biologically male, they just have a serious mental condition (gender dysphoria) for which the best treatment available right now is transition. They're just living their lives as best they can. They don't wave their "girldicks" around because they don't like having a penis or other things about them that makes them "male"-- literally by definition, they feel dysphoric about their birth sex. These are also the trans women who shy away from sports or other contexts in which they would stand out for being biologically male, again because they don't want that brought to people's attention as it is a source of distress and shame for them.

I know these people exist because I had a very close friend with this condition. She would go to this alternative funky thrift store and buy piles of clothing second hand because she didn't want to be seen in a regular store buying women's clothing and certainly didn't want to go into a women's changing room before "passing", so she'd try them on at home. She quit doing sports except for casual intramural stuff that was co-ed. She always was up front about being trans when dating and she accepted that it would mean the majority of people would not be interested in her (she described it as going to a shoe store with wide feet-- the vast majority of shoes simply aren't made for you, and that might mean you only can choose from a few options). She did hormones, surgery(including bottom surgery), the works. Is she "really a woman"? Well, strictly speaking, no. But when she put so much effort into living life the way that she could feel most comfortable, and was always respectful of others, I just kinda feel like it'd be a dick move for me to constantly point out to her that she was born male. So people like that, to me, I can treat them as "women" and use female pronouns and such because in my view they clearly have made a good faith effort and are not harming biological women and if being polite helps relieve their mental distress at the current time where we don't have a way to relieve GD with medicine or therapy otherwise, then I'm going to do so.

In my view there is a tiny number of these people with gender dysphoria, who are harming no one. However, a large number of perverts, fetishists, "not like the other girls" snowflakes, white people who want to identify into oppression, and other trenders in general that have co-opted the struggle of transsexual people to further their own ends. My beef lies solely with them.

[–]transwomanHesitantly QT? 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

As you mentioned, the definition that I would use for woman is "anyone who identifies as a woman" and for man it's "anyone who identifies as a man." While some might point to a dictionary to define these words, I think this is a very fallacious argument. We don't derive words from the dictionary, but we create definitions of words and then write the dictionary afterward. The problem with defining "woman" as "adult human female" and "man" as "adult human male" is that it effectively undermines the true sexist purpose of gender in a social context.

As a pragmatist, I see that gender is a social construct that has no other use in society besides to reinforce sexist stereotypes and gender roles, and believe that redefining gender to be based on self identification alone is an highly effective way to eradicate gender and make it a useless concept. In its uselessness, in a pragmatic sense, gender would eventually cease to exist (obviously this would take centuries because well, we're all socialized to accept gender as a concept under patriarchy and it takes a long time to undo all of that). I believe that the inclusion of transgender men and transgender women in the definition of their respective gender is a necessity to the end goal of abolition of gender.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Yeah, of course "we" make the definitions, or rather made them. All "our" definitions can be found in the dictionary. Circular definitions made up by individuals like "someone who identifies as a woman" (what is this someone identifying as?) can hardly be regarded as suitable replacements.

Masculinity & femininity are the genders, not "man & woman". "Man & woman" in humans is no different from "billy & nanny" in goats. If "male & female" don't "undermine the true sexist purpose of gender in a social context" then how should man & woman be doing so?

Binary transgenderism supports the view that gender is innate, embracing it sounds like the opposite of gender abolition. If gender abolition is the end goal then non-binary, specifically agender is the way to get there.

[–]transwomanHesitantly QT? 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

That's the point. I don't want a suitable replacement, and I don't care if it's circular because my goal is to bring society closer to gender abolition. By making gender circularly defined, we are eliminating any pragmatic use of it in a social context. I don't want gender in the dictionary. Besides, just because a word is defined a certain way in the dictionary today doesn't mean that we must adhere to the dictionary tomorrow. Words are not immutable.

Masculinity & femininity are the genders

"Masculinity" and "femininity" are not genders. "Masculinity" and "femininity" are a part of the genders "man" and "woman"; they are not separate entities. If femininity is a gender, should Jeffrey Star use the women's restroom?

"Man & woman" in humans is no different from "billy & nanny"

Trying to say the terms "billy" and "nanny" in goats are comparable to the terms "man" and "woman" in humans is ignoring the social context of why we have these words in the first place. They weren't just extra words we created for fun, they're entirely constructed for the purpose of pushing the narrative that a male must adopt the roles of a man and a female must adopt the roles of a woman. Goats don't have the cognitive capability to oppress each other on the basis of their sex, nor did they invent the words "billy" or "nanny" themselves.

Binary transgenderism supports the view that gender is innate, embracing it sounds like the opposite of gender abolition. If gender abolition is the end goal then non-binary, specifically agender is the way to get there.

Well, it certainly "sounds" like the opposite of gender abolition when you strawman what it means to be a binary trans person. Just because you're "binary" doesn't mean you are "conforming" to a form of masculinity or femininity, it means your gender is one of the two genders established in our culture (where gender is whatever you identify as). I like video games and wearing t-shirts/jeans. Does that mean that I'm not a binary trans woman?

I'm advocating for a world where gender doesn't exist, or at the very least, doesn't matter. This can only be done from a pragmatic perspective. In our current society, for better or for worse, people cling to the terms "man" and "woman" because we have been socialized to accept that having gender is the only way we can coexist. The acceptance of binary trans people would directly lead to the acceptance of non-binary trans people, and then eventually the elimination of gender due to its unpractical usage ("anyone who identifies"). I want people identifying as ketchup and mustard genders one day in the future, if not a full abolition of gender. To me, a useless circular definition for the greater good of society is always and improvement from a sexist, concrete definition.

[–]anonymale 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I'm advocating for a world where gender doesn't exist, or at the very least, doesn't matter. This can only be done from a pragmatic perspective. In our current society, for better or for worse, people cling to the terms "man" and "woman" because we have been socialized to accept that having gender is the only way we can coexist. The acceptance of binary trans people would directly lead to the acceptance of non-binary trans people, and then eventually the elimination of gender due to its unpractical usage ("anyone who identifies").

Imagine arguing that white people performing black/brown/red/yellowface if they 'identify' that way would be a pragmatic way to somehow eliminate racism, at some indeterminate point. You claim to know gender is harmful and want it abolished, yet you argue for its continued reinforcement. This contradiction is why you don't have a straightforward answer to the question, why you and other gender apologists talk endlessly in circles. Really these circles are defensive ramparts in front of the social privilege of males, which only exists through the oppression of females.

[–]transwomanHesitantly QT? 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Imagine arguing that white people performing black/brown/red/yellowface if they 'identify' that way would be a pragmatic way to somehow eliminate racism

Imagine arguing that blackface is the same thing as being transgender. A person's skin color is a biological/genetic trait. Gender is not a genetic trait. That is why someone can self identify as a gender and not a skin color. There is a valid argument to be made that the social aspect of race, which is completely arbitrary, could be defined out of existence through circular definitions as well, which just reinforces my argument. If you make a socially constructed idea circular, it has no meaning and therefore no pragmatic value.

at some indeterminate point

Do you have a date and time for the Great Gender Abolition? I don't think so, obviously the idea of when gender abolition happens is going to be arbitrary.

You claim to know gender is harmful and want it abolished, yet you argue for its continued reinforcement

No, I'm arguing to redefine it in a circular manner, which makes it a pointless concept. This is different from maintaining the status quo. I support this circular definition from a pragmatic standpoint as well as a harm reductionist standpoint.

Really these circles are defensive ramparts in front of the social privilege of males, which only exists through the oppression of females.

This is simply not true. I am strongly in favor of gender abolition. I believe we are farther from gender abolition than we have ever been because sex and gender are so often conflated in our society that clings to these terms. The most pragmatic way to remove gender is to make it a circular, useless concept. This would not only remove a great reinforcer of oppression of females, but also allow society to focus on the root of it all: sex-based oppression. Rather than having inconsequential arguments about whether or not we should keep gender.

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

Imagine arguing that blackface is the same thing as being transgender.

It's a simile. As in 'similar', not 'same'. But you know this. Throughout this thread you complain that others twist your argument. How about not doing that yourself? I'll restate my argument. It is absurd to suggest that performing blackface could somehow liberate anyone from the tyranny of race. Race and gender are similar concepts in that they are arbitrarily defined in order to enact and reinforce oppression. Therefore it is absurd to suggest that performing gender could somehow liberate people from the tyranny of gender. The solution to a problem is never more of the problem.

A person's skin color is a biological/genetic trait. Gender is not a genetic trait. That is why someone can self identify as a gender and not a skin color. ... the social aspect of race...

Imagine implying that there is any other aspect of race. Imagine conflating a genetic trait, the colour of a person's skin, with an arbitrarily defined 'race'. Ask yourself, who else does that, and why? Race and gender are already circularly defined by those who benefit from them as "whatever we say they are". Queer theory is no different, defining "woman" as "whatever we say it is".

... remove gender ... allow society to focus on the root of it all: sex-based oppression

Women named the root of the problem long ago, without the help of queer theory, when they said that gender is sex-based oppression. I am done with this now. Like queer theory as a whole, it is a massive energy-sapping distraction.

[–]transwomanHesitantly QT? 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It is absurd to suggest that performing blackface could somehow liberate anyone from the tyranny of race. Race and gender are similar concepts

This is still a false equivalence. I am not arguing for gender performance, nor is gender performance the same as performing blackface. To compare these two things is to undermine the significance of imperialism and the racism that fueled it. But that's beyond the point, because this is still a straw man of my argument. I am not arguing we should continue using gender in it's current form as sex roles. I am arguing for the redefinition of man and woman as "anyone who identifies as such". I don't know how clear I need to be that this is not the same as maintaining the status quo.

Imagine implying that there is any other aspect of race.

You talk about me apparently twisting your argument, but thus far every person in this thread has done exactly this. How about taking my argument with good faith rather than immediately assuming the worst potential outcome? Your argument would be far more convincing if you didn't assume I'm acting in bad faith.

To be clear, I understand that race is a socially constructed concept. But when I said "the social aspect of race," I was most definitely implying there are other aspects of race, all equally rooted in oppression. There are economic aspects of race, there are political aspects of race.

That being said, this whole blackface/gender argument is still a straw man of my proposed redefinition of gender.

Queer theory is no different, defining "woman" as "whatever we say it is".

The difference is that instead of it being "whatever the patriarchy/men say it is," it becomes "whatever anyone says it is". It becomes a personal matter, rather than one forced upon you. Like I said before, I want ice cream and potato genders.

Women named the root of the problem long ago, without the help of queer theory, when they said that gender is sex-based oppression.

Yup and now we're still just as far from gender abolition as we have ever been so if you want I have a cool theory that redefines gender to be whatever each individual personally wants themselves to be, and frees them of being forced into a specific sex role.

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

Words are not immutable.

Right, but biological sex class IS. We could find new words for man and woman but the underlying concept of 2 different sexes remains. Biological sex is immutable, testable and a material condition of a person.

A man can wear whatever he wants but he remains a man.

[–]transwomanHesitantly QT? 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is a straw man of my argument. I never stated that biological sex wasn't real, nor that it is a mutable concept. In fact, if you had asked, I would agree with you on this point. And we don't need more words to represent one's biological sex: for that, we already have male and female. "Man" and "woman" are impractical even from a literary sense.

If we agree that biological sex is immutable, and gender is a socially constructed set of sex roles, then why wouldn't you want to remove these by making gender a impractical concept in day-to-day use so we can eventually move passed it in society?

[–]tuesday 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

By making gender circularly defined, we are eliminating any pragmatic use of it in a social context.

I'm advocating for a world where gender doesn't exist, or at the very least, doesn't matter. This can only be done from a pragmatic perspective.

a large part of the problem is that most transpeople are incredibly imprecise in their language. Try saying the exact same thing that you said previously, but instead of the word "gender" you use either "sex" or "sexist stereotypes". You're flip flopping around and you don't even realize it.

[–]transwomanHesitantly QT? 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm not sure what's imprecise about my language. I define gender and sex as two completely separate things that are arbitrarily linked for the purposes of sex-based oppression alone. Why would I intentionally replace the world "gender" with "sex" in my last reply if these things are not remotely synonyms? "Sex roles" and "gender" could be swapped interchangeably, but of course I want to make sex roles meaningless too, that still fits into my argument. Here are the current definitions of gender as they exist today in a social sense:

1) Gender: A socially constructed categorization of sex roles, expressions, stereotypes, and expressions.

2) Biological sex: A biological categorization based roughly on chromosomes, phenotypical/secondary sex characteristics, external genitalia, gamete production, and reproductive anatomy (male/female)

Currently, the only "pragmatic" use for the concept of gender is to oppress women, trans people, and gender non-conforming people. To me, this isn't truly pragmatic because oppression should definitely not be considered of use to society in any manner. To many, however, it is pragmatic because they mostly benefit from this system (i.e. natal men).

Because of this, I am proposing a solution that, over time, would remove this subjective pragmatic use of gender in its current state as an oppressive force. My solution is to redefine gender out of existence. Make it a circular definition for all I care, as long as it goes away, I could not care less how it is defined. Here is my proposed new definition, since I apparently wasn't clear enough before:

1) Gender: A person's identity in relation to the pronouns said person describes themselves with (Example: A woman is someone who identifies as a woman. A man is someone who identifies as a man).
2) Biological sex: Unchanged

Admittedly, this is a very broad definition, but it is done intentionally. I want the idea of gender to be so abstract that it becomes meaningless and unpragmatic. As I said before, I want ketchup and mustard genders. In this world of gender meaninglessness, biological sex still remains a scientific reality. I am not proposing any changes to biological sex, or saying it isn't real. Sex is immutable, and unchanging.

If you need me to clarify and more terms, I would be glad to. I think most of the contention between gender critical and queer theory is semantics, but I am definitely happy to clarify any confusion in my argument.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The dictionary is updated quarterly. There is no reason to accept a made-up, circular, & therefore redundant definition of a word over the dictionary's.

"Masculinity" and "femininity" are not genders.

Yes, they are. They're literally genders. I don't know who Jeffrey Star is, but I'm assuming he was conditioned into masculinity & not femininity via socialisation, so his gender would be masculine.

Man & woman are just nouns for the respective adjectives male & female, when referring to adult human beings. All words are culturally contaminated with connotation, which is not the fault of the words. The words man & woman would exist either way, just as billy & nanny exist even though they serve no social purpose in human society. Again, if male & female can be used, so can their noun forms man & woman.

Gender-conforming, binary transgender people – the social majority within the microcosm – do indeed do the opposite of abolishing gender. Recognising trans-women as GNC men would actually challenge the concept of manhood to breaking point. Social conformity but biological non-conformity of trans-women doesn't challenge femininity, it does the opposite, it promotes a biological essentialist view of gender, where femininity is innate.

So, to recap:

adjectives for the genders: masculine & feminine

nouns for the genders: masculinity & femininity

adjectives for the sexes: male & female

nouns for the sexes: man & woman

[–]transwomanHesitantly QT? 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The dictionary is updated quarterly. There is no reason to accept a made-up, circular, & therefore redundant definition of a word over the dictionary's.

And even though it may very well be updated quarterly, the dictionary does not always take into account the social and societal usage of words. Just because words a defined such a way in the dictionary doesn't mean we use them that way in a social context.

While it seems counterintuitive to accept a circular definition, as that would be unpragmatic, the end goal of accepting said circular definitions is much more pragmatic than leaving them as they stand. You would have to convince me that keeping the current dictionary definition of "man" and "woman" has been more beneficial to the abolition of gender than my definition which takes into account social context and the end goal of gender abolition. So far I'm not convinced.

Yes, they are. They're literally genders.

As I stated before, masculinity and femininity are aspects of gender, they are not genders themselves. Quite literally, when we ask someone's gender we don't say "I am feminine," we say "I am a woman". "Man" and "masculine", "Woman" and "feminine" are inherently connected in a social context, where "man" and "woman" are the categories. Masculinity and femininity are sets of attributes associated with said genders.

I don't know who Jeffrey Star is, but I'm assuming he was conditioned into masculinity & not femininity via socialisation, so his gender would be masculine.

This is going out of bounds of our original discussion so I won't go into too much detail, but socialization isn't a magical force that ends the second you become an adult. People are continuously conditioned across their whole life.

Also his gender would be "man," not masculine. I 100% guarantee if you asked him he would not tell you his gender is masculine because masculine is an adjective not a noun!

All words are culturally contaminated with connotation

So would you accept that the "true" definition of a word is how we actually apply it in a social context, not what the dictionary literally says? If that's the case, let's redefine the concept of gender out of existence.

Again, if male & female can be used, so can their noun forms man & woman.

Man and woman are associated with sex roles and oppression, they are not interchangeable with male and female. But let's assume the dictionary definition's validity for a moment. This makes the terms not only unpragmatic from a social context, but they are also unpragmatic from a literary context because we don't need two words to describe the same exact thing. As a pragmatist, I would like to simplify language by removing unnecessary terms, and if man is the same as "adult male", I see no reason to have that term since "adult male" is a perfectly pragmatic descriptor. Same applies for "woman" and "adult female".

Recognising trans-women as GNC men would actually challenge the concept of manhood to breaking point.

For me to be convinced of this argument, I would need to be convinced that every trans woman and every trans man strictly conforms to stereotypes of their respective gender identity. This simply isn't the case and to assume this just doesn't convince me of your argument. What happens for trans women who still present fairly masculine, but puruse things like medical treatment or surgery which reflect phenotypical/biological aspects of one's body, not sex roles? Are you now saying that we should recognize that said non-conforming trans woman as a woman because that would make them gender non-conforming and challenge the concept of gender?

Social conformity but biological non-conformity of trans-women doesn't challenge femininity

Well of course not, but most trans people (in the context of binary trans people) pursue medical treatment for the purposes of conforming to biological traits, like hormone therapy, as I stated above.

it promotes a biological essentialist view of gender, where femininity is innate.

I am not saying femininity is innate, and I don't care if someone else said it because we are the ones having this discussion. All I am saying is if the genders man and woman are sex roles, then certainly they would need to be removed due to their inherent harm. And the only way to remove them is not to cling onto the terms because of what the dictionary says, but to redefine them in our social usage to make them an unpragmatic construct that can easily be abandoned.

adjectives for the genders: masculine & feminine

nouns for the genders: masculinity & femininity

adjectives for the genders: masculine & feminine

nouns for the genders: man & woman (which are associated with masculinity and femininity, but this doesn't make masculinity and femininity genders)

adjectives for the sexes: male & female

nouns for the sexes: man & woman

adjectives for the sexes: male & female

nouns for the sexes: male & female

Your definitions aren't even accurate as they fail to take into account our social usage of these terms. Nobody says "I am masculine" in response to what their gender is. Male and female are also most definitely used in a noun context all the time, so there is not pragmatic literary usage for man and woman since we already have nouns to describe sex.

Now here's how it should be after gender abolition:

adjectives for the genders: whatever the heck you want

nouns for the genders: whatever the heck you want

adjectives for the sexes: male & female

nouns for the sexes: male & female

My proposed definitions are more pragmatic that yours as I'm eliminating unnecessary terms. Even if we just look at my proposed definitions of sex, these remain unchanged from how we literally use them socially today. The only thing changing is gender.

[–]theblackfleet 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

As a pragmatist, I see that gender is a social construct that has no other use in society besides to reinforce sexist stereotypes and gender roles, and believe that redefining gender to be based on self identification alone is an highly effective way to eradicate gender and make it a useless concept. In its uselessness, in a pragmatic sense, gender would eventually cease to exist (obviously this would take centuries because well, we're all socialized to accept gender as a concept under patriarchy and it takes a long time to undo all of that). I believe that the inclusion of transgender men and transgender women in the definition of their respective gender is a necessity to the end goal of abolition of gender.

I see your point. I really do. I have thought about this for a long time. I also thought that perhaps transgenderism IS the thing that will end gender aka sex role stereotypes but I realized quickly that transgenderism UPHOLDS these sex role stereotypes. Men who think they're women do everything to engage in those sex role stereotypes, in fact, they define themselves by them. This is why men will grow their hair out, wear feminine clothing, makeup and do stereotypical behaviours like hair fllicking and fluttering eyelashes and those horrible selfies.

In fact, transgenderism doesn't want to eradicate gender, at all. It seeks to replace biological sex with sex role stereotypes as the definition of man and woman.

In the 80's, when I was a teen, there were a lot of music guys with long hair and makeup. I used to admire those men because I honestly thought they were breaking a boundary. They didn't call themselves women. They just engaged in femininity sex role stereotypes AS MEN. To me, that was excellent and liberating because they were men who felt comfortable enough to discard masculinity for femininity.

But I'm all grown up now, a woman. I see that even though those 80's men were breaking some boundaries, they were STILL men and treated as primary people in a patriarchal society. They still had power, because they were male, in a patriarchy, even though they wore frilly clothing.

Today, men don't just engage in femininity. They claim they're women, but like those 80's men, they retain all the power and privilege of men. They don't challenge the sex role stereotypes of femininity. They claim that those sex role stereotypes ARE womanhood.

Point is, we all know who the men are who the women are. Gender stereotypes aren't going away with transgenderism. They're being upheld more strongly than ever.

A man can wear a dress and lipstick and he still retains his power and privilege, and that's because everyone still knows he's a man. Biological sex class is what matters here. Gender DOES need to be abolished, but I don't see transgenderism as the thing that abolishes it.

[–]transwomanHesitantly QT? 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Men who think they're women do everything to engage in those sex role stereotypes, in fact, they define themselves by them. This is why men will grow their hair out, wear feminine clothing, makeup and do stereotypical behaviours like hair fllicking and fluttering eyelashes and those horrible selfies.

I'm curious to hear if you would criticize a natal woman for "upholding" these same stereotypes. I'm a trans woman, and I don't define my womanhood on the basis of sex stereotypes. For me it's primarily based on sex dysphoria, and secondary sexual characteristics. It has nothing to do with wearing makeup or wearing dresses or whatever. I like video games, which is a hobby associated with men and boys, but that doesn't change anything for me.

You're also begging the question, because in order for your argument to make sense, I have to assume that all trans women are stereotypically feminine and "do everything to engage in those sex role stereotypes". This is clearly not true, given I'm here right now and I could very easily list you trans women who bypass this caricature that you've made up. You could make the argument that much of the media representation of trans women stereotype femininity, but that's a whole different story (isn't that the patriarchy to blame for that, where the media is propping up the idea that women must be ultra feminine to garner any media attention?).

In fact, transgenderism doesn't want to eradicate gender, at all. It seeks to replace biological sex with sex role stereotypes as the definition of man and woman.

I really don't understand where this idea comes from, as it's a complete straw man of queer theory. All trans people know what biological sex is; it's the whole reason we transition in the first place. The terms "man" and "woman" are already defined as sex role stereotypes in a social context, and this problem was not introduced by trans people, but by the patriarchy. Pragmatically, the dictionary definitions of words do not always define the social usage of said words, so this idea that the dictionary definition of woman is "adult human female" and man is "adult human male" doesn't even really apply to this conversation given that, socially speaking, gender (including the terms man and woman) is quite literally a sexist oppressive force; nothing more, nothing less.

If you ask me, I don't want to replace any terms. I want to eliminate useless, oppressive terms. "Man" and "woman" should be mean "anyone who identifies as such," which is not a sex role stereotype as you claim I am trying to do. This redefinition is what will effectively make gender obsolete.

Today, men don't just engage in femininity. They claim they're women, but like those 80's men, they retain all the power and privilege of men. They don't challenge the sex role stereotypes of femininity. They claim that those sex role stereotypes ARE womanhood.

It is really interesting that you make these broad assumptions about what it means to be trans, while also undermining our own oppression. I don't even really want to get into this discussion because it's far beyond the original point, but non-passing trans people experience tons of discrimination, harassment, abuse, etc for being trans, and passing trans women experience much of the same discrimination and oppression that natal women might experience. That isn't to say that the oppression of trans women and natal women are identical, obviously not, but there are more often than not many, many stark similarities.

Point is, we all know who the men are who the women are. Gender stereotypes aren't going away with transgenderism. They're being upheld more strongly than ever.

Let's redefine the terms man and woman out of existence. Let's have 200 genders until it becomes so pointless to have gender that we stop using it. This can be accomplished with the inclusion of binary and non-binary transgender people in their respective gender identities. I want pineapple and pumpkin genders, I want apple and orange genders, literally anything we can think of to make it a completely impractical concept to even use in our society.

A man can wear a dress and lipstick and he still retains his power and privilege, and that's because everyone still knows he's a man.

This seems like an odd point to throw in, this argument that all trans women can be "clocked" as transgender. Maybe that's true (or maybe not), but then aren't you the one that's saying that women are a sex stereotype if a trans woman doesn't conform to your expectation of 'woman'? What happens when you have a natal woman who is very masculine in terms of their phenotypical expression? The point is that even if you think you "clocked" a trans woman, you can't really confirm that without proof (the trans women or someone else telling you, info from outside source), right?

[–]tuesday 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

but we create definitions of words and then write the dictionary afterward.

and yet, we don't just randomly assign arbitrary meaning to words tho. Classes of things can only considered to be in the same class as long as everything in that class possess the same characteristics.

The only way anybody could classify "penises" and "vaginas" as belonging in the same category is if they were describing "mammals". As soon as you start differentiating on the basis of "who's got the penises" and "who's got the vagina" then transwomen belong to group "male".

[–]transwomanHesitantly QT? 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But now you're conflating sex with gender. Did I ever say that someone with a penis isn't male, trans or not?

While it seems counter-intuitive to redefine gender from "sex roles" to be based on self identification (as this makes gender seem arbitrary and unclear), it is the exact direction we should go in to abolish gender. If we want to get rid of something, we need to make sure nobody can find any pragmatic value in that thing. If gender is based solely on self identification, and we have pickles and ice cream genders, then evidently society will come to a point where there is no need for gender to exist.

In this redefining of gender, biological sex remains what it is today. I never proposed any changes to this. If you'd like to argue about how we classify biological sex and how we should do so, I think that would require a completely different thread, as we are strictly talking about redefining gender and gender abolition.

[–]theblackfleet 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

My 'go to' question when I get harassed for stating biological fact is to ask people to define woman. They mostly never answer but sometimes they'll say 'anyone who identifies as one.'

We all know it's silly, the whole 'I identify as a woman' nonsense.

There is only one definition of woman: adult human female.

[–]Jizera 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So we have another event of the never ending "debate" about definitions. But the trans-ideology is not mathematics or other exact science and sex, gender, man, woman, male, female trans woman, trans man are not matematical concepts. The central trans-creed "trans women are women / trans men are men" is not relating trans women and trans men to some definition of the woman and man. Non-transsexual people should actually read the trans-creed as a commandment "You shall treat, address and accept a trans woman as a woman and a trans man as a man". For transsexual people this "creed" is only expression of their unrealizable desire, what they mask by using the foggy concepts of gender or gender identity. The gender identity is actually only expressing that the person identifies with the opposite sex; there is no other factual content of that concept. There is no possible "definition" of woman and man which is unrelated to roles in reproduction. We distinguish women from men because of the way how we reproduce. If we reproduced like slugs (by the way it is very intersting see the Wikipedia article Reproductive system of gastropods) there would be no men and women, only human beings.