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 →

[–]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.