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 →

[–]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.