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 -  (3 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 -  (2 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.

[–]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.