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

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]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.