Definitions

submitted by loveSloaneDebate King from self.GCdebatesQT

All of the posts we’ve been getting about how words are defined and why, and what words actually mean has had me wondering two things:

  1. Why would we change the definitions of words describing sex and sexuality (woman, man, male, female, homosexual, heterosexual, even bisexual for some reason...) when these changes would only apply to about 1% of the human population, and the definitions as they stand apply to 99%?

(I’d argue they apply to even the 1%, but I think that’s a slightly different conversation)

And

*2. If trans people identified as a man/woman or male/female before they were redefining these words or attempting to, does it not make more sense for them to accept the definitions as they are, but explain how they fit those definitions? I just find it odd to identify as something but then attempt to redefine it, when your initial understanding of the word was what you identified with in the first place. How does redefining these words not invalidate?

all 13 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

1 > Why would we change the definitions of words . . .

In response to organized and institutionally-driven pressures. We often hear the argument language evolves (for instance) in assertions like "TWAW." Language does evolve quickly in areas like slang and tech neologisms, but "woman/man" etc. are core terms describing foundational realities. There's no way the anglophone public would just absorb an accelerated change in the definition of these words, any more than they'd absorb a wildly variable new definition for "food," "river," or "tree" -- the foundational lexicon is too old and well-tested. It's a forced adaptation that negates consensus and subverts reality, and activists who blithely assume that linguistic evolution = whatever changes they want to force into usage are courting huge pushback (and, worryingly, backlash). Pick a modifier or improvised word to describe the new reality for the 1% -- subverting basic language isn't going to fly.

2 > does it not make more sense for them to accept the definitions as they are, but explain how they fit those definitions?

To my mind, yes. Modify or improvise on the old terms -- that's in line with how language evolves. "Trans" itself would be a very strong term to build on or use as a modifier; most people are already familiar with it, and it's a very neutral prefix with no ancient linguistic baggage.

[–]BiologyIsReal 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think this goes beyond the trans issue. Some people think that language shapes society and that by policing language they can change society itself. Transactivists just takes this view to the extreme and they believe (or at least want to believe) they can change reality itself. It's a lost battle, though. They could redefine woman and other words however they want. They could lobby every goverment in the world to make "legal sex change" possible. They could lobby to make "medical transition" legal and covered by the health systems everywhere. They could force everyone to "validate" them. And yet that won't make their "identities" more real. A male is still male regardless of how much he insists otherwise.

Furthermore, because sex exists and we need a way talk about it, people eventually would come out with new words to refer to the things that transactivists made nameless. The superstraight thing may have been a joke, but I think it shows pretty well how focusing so much in language leads nowhere.

[–]FlanJam 6 insightful - 6 fun6 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 6 fun -  (2 children)

I think QT wants to be able to say trans-men/woman are real and valid. Not just real to them, but really really objectively facts-and-logic real. So they redefine words to cement the realness. I guess they think it gives them legitimacy of some kind.

Recently I fell into a youtube hole of watching trans youtubers discussing how to define woman, and its interesting how rarely natal women are invited to the conversation. You'd think natal women should have a say in how to define woman since, even by QT definitions, we make up 99% of women. But I guess that's because the sole purpose of their definition is to find a way to include transwomen, and pretty much disregards natal women.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

But that’s what doesn’t make sense to me, I think. Why would you want to be seen as a real woman but come up with definitions that mean anyone can be a woman if they just believe? That just diminishes the value of the word, to me. I’d get it if they clung to some weird explanation about how they are themselves adult human females, even though I know it doesn’t actually work. People are going to question and disagree with QT’s definitions unless or until they succeed in making it illegal to do so lol. It just makes more sense to me to tell the world how they fit the definition, since it’s not going to be accepted by most people anyway. But I see what you’re saying and I agree that’s what’s happening, it just seems like an odd move to make

[–]FlanJam 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

You're right, it doesn't make sense. I don't think they've really thought it out. They're just so myopically focused on affirming trans-men/women are really men/women that they come up with any ad hoc reasoning to make it work. It's like they're just saying whatever sounds good in the moment without much thought to how much sense it makes in the big picture.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

  1. I don't think we should, but the intention to do so seems to be a well-meaning if misguided one. It seems more symbolic of recognizing a minority group, "giving them a voice" or something like that--acknowledgement that trans people exist. The unnecessary burden and disruption this puts on the majority is reminiscent of the unintended consequences of the US No Child Left Behind Act where resources and effort and attention is redirected to the minority at the expense of the majority.

  2. It makes much more sense, but I think that what's becoming apparent with more people self-identifying as transgender is that many if not most people want to break free from gender roles and expectations. I think people who didn't fit the expected roles of their sex could historically best escape those expectations by transitioning to live as the opposite sex, not because they saw themselves as the opposite sex or even really wanted to be, but because it was the only established treatment for gender dysphoria (or more specifically for GID or transsexualism, which GD as a diagnosis is derived from). So people have transitioned when they maybe didn't really want to or shouldn't have, and I sort of think it's those people who don't fully see themselves as belonging to the opposite sex or gender yet experience discomfort with their own sex or stereotyped sex roles who seek to redefine words to maybe better explain their experience. In some way or another, anyone who self-identifies as trans or transitions is trying to change reality to some degree, and for different reasons there's a certain intolerance to their reality that I would think every trans person deals with or has dealt with.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 10 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

  1. I feel like using the terms trans woman/man is acknowledging them. There’s a huge difference imo between acknowledging trans people and pretending that TW are the same as women or TM are the same as men. We can- and should- acknowledge the existence of trans people without conflation.

  2. The thing is, gender roles have nothing to do with the definitions of those words. So i don’t get why that hinders then from explaining how they fit into the definitions as they stand. If you have to redefine a word in order to make it fit your experience- that word doesn’t fit your experience, and you should find another word to use, because it does fit other people’s experience as it is currently defined. And it fits others experiences without gender roles being present.

I’ll say again here what I said on another post- there is no “their reality” and “someone else’s reality”. Reality is fact as it exists aside from any interpretation or perception. We all share the same reality- we just have different experiences. If that’s not so, what even is the point of the word “reality”? I agree there’s a level of intolerance that trans people have to endure, but I think a large part of it (today- not in the past) is due to what a lot of the trans community today is demanding of everyone else. obviously there’s some blatant hatred or even disgust aimed at trans people that’s uncalled for, but the trans community can’t survive and have what they generally seem to want without crossing a lot of other marginalized people’s boundaries (and even some people who aren’t marginalized)- and now they seem to think that those of us who feel our boundaries aren’t being respected aren’t deserving of dialogue or even the ability to voice our feelings if it doesn’t favor trans people (obligatory not all), that is bound to cause issues for trans people, because people will always want to speak out when they feel their needs and boundaries aren’t being respected. That’s why I ask so often about how small the trans community is- it seems absurd to demand so much from almost 100% of the population, and yet here we are. Idk that was kind of a tangent my bad

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

I feel like using the terms trans woman/man is acknowledging them. There’s a huge difference imo between acknowledging trans people and pretending that TW are the same as women or TM are the same as men. We can- and should- acknowledge the existence of trans people without conflation.

It really does, and you're right. I agree completely.

The thing is, gender roles have nothing to do with the definitions of those words. So i don’t get why that hinders then from explaining how they fit into the definitions as they stand. If you have to redefine a word in order to make it fit your experience- that word doesn’t fit your experience, and you should find another word to use, because it does fit other people’s experience as it is currently defined. And it fits others experiences without gender roles being present.

Right, but I think many people see them as being synonymous... or maybe used to before the conversation of 'gender vs sex' wasn't really happening. So maybe that's a good thing now that it's actually trans people and TRAs themselves who are drawing attention to the difference between a gender role or sex role based on stereotypes, and sex itself. Maybe that's part of the strange mystery of gender dysphoria, that a person could have such difficulty understanding how they fit into a definition, or are aversive to trying to fit themselves into it, and would rather try to fit into a definition they can't.

Reality is all shared and can be experienced objectively, but not everyone perceives or interprets it the same way--which is kind of neat in a way! Maybe we would all think the same way and behave the same way otherwise. But forcing others to perceive and interpret reality differently is rather violating, particularly when one does so because they cannot accept something about reality. In this context, when I say "their reality", I mean the reality of their situation: of being a man or woman. They can't tolerate that aspect of their reality.

What's weird about the trans community is how it just seems to keep growing and expanding to include more people and designate more people as trans. When it was just transsexuals when there was more 'gatekeeping', it was so tiny I don't believe there was a community--like, the idea of a trans community seems quite new because there never were that many trans people before. But it's expanded to include so many people who never would have been called trans before (although I think the word 'transgender' was created by a non-transsexual to normalize crossdressing or something like that). Maybe we will reach a point where everyone is included under the 'trans umbrella' and will become bored of it, or just seeing it as made up or silly... and then that will be the end of the idea of gender identity entirely. Life is strange, I wouldn't be surprised if that happened!

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 4 fun10 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

it's actually trans people and TRAs themselves who are drawing attention to the difference between a gender role or sex role based on stereotypes, and sex itself.

LOL, you can't be serious. This is a classic example of redefining reality, rewriting history & appropriating the work/insights of others to make those who embrace trans ideology & QT appear to be an enlightened, more highly evolved, superior class who are doing us backwards, inferior rubes the great favor of "educating" us.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

They are geniuses--transgender is always right and always did it first (except for all the bad stuff). Their genius just can't go unnoticed, I won't stand for it. The world must know from whom they've gained this incredible wisdom!

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I guess what I’m saying as far as definitions is that definitions are simply factual, so how someone may personally interpret them shouldn’t be a factor. Even the implications society places on words shouldn’t be a factor. Words still mean what they mean. The issue is the interpretation/implication, not the meaning. And tras/some trans people push the interpretation/implication, rather than diminishing it.

It’s kind of confusing to me how tras try to separate sex and gender but disregard that separation to validate themselves or just simply don’t understand that woman/man aren’t genders. They did a great job of pushing to separating the two, but cause harm by saying gender= brain, sex=genitals. because that’s not what gender means or has ever meant, so the implication always seems to be gender is your mind and reliant on the roles/stereotypes you prefer- which is incredibly regressive and sexist.

“Reality is all shared and can be experienced objectively, but not everyone perceives or interprets it the same way”

My point is still that reality is what it is regardless of how someone interprets or perceives it. That doesn’t mean we all behave the same, as human experiences will always vary vastly, but it does mean that some things just are and aren’t true, no matter what. To put it in the context of this sub- TW can claim to be female, they definitively aren’t, and that will always be provable. The reality is, some TW can appear to be female and or change their legal documents to female, and argue that they are “legally female”- which... I have a lot to say about that, but it’s not untrue. But the reality also is that legally or not, appearing so or not, they still aren’t actually female human beings.

I get what you’re saying about not being able to tolerate reality- but frankly, as insensitive as it is to say, that’s a personal problem, and the solution to that inability should not be to force everyone else to conform you what you’d prefer reality to be, that’s invasive and violating, particularly when it’s so easily proven that what someone may prefer reality to be is not factual.

I sometimes wonder if this whole “trans umbrella”, non binary, trans gender thing is an attempt to make people who aren’t trans (either actually transsexual or the large umbrella of anyone who is gnc and agrees to be labeled trans even if there’s no real reason to) think that there are more trans people in the world than there are, as an attempt to normalize being trans or avoid exactly what I’m saying- that the trans community is too small to warrant the demands they are making. If there are more trans people acknowledged, maybe they think it will make more sense to bend to their wants and needs, if that makes sense? When, to me, it seems that when trans just meant transsexual, there were less issues between trans people and people who aren’t trans. It seems easier to say “trans(sexual)women make up a small percentage of people, and they need a certain degree of compromise to be safe” than to say “anyone who identifies as a woman is one, and they deserve access to whatever space any woman would have access to, and they are entitled to having their sense of identity affirmed and not questioned.” The former kind of encourages protection of a small and vulnerable group*, the latter just tells women to deal with any male/man who demands inclusion and access to our spaces.

*that’s not to say that all women would be open to compromise, just that I think women in general were more open to sharing spaces and including TW in some situations, or at least not objecting to sharing some spaces in the past. obviously that’s not universal and there would still be objection, and was still some objection in the past. But I think there was less objection in the past than today, because ideology wasn’t being pushed on anyone, and transphobia was defined in a logical way- violence against trans people, hate speech or exclusion in general (as opposed to exclusion in sex specific spaces or situations).

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Language is a reflection of a collective way of thinking, and if words have the power to influence or shape some aspects of reality, it's not surprising that people would try to manipulate them in order to make people think or see things differently. That's probably the easiest way that a person might be able to influence reality, or another person's perception of it. I'd never really considered it until just now, but it's almost like a form of gaslighting on a grand scale, forcing people to question their understanding of the words and concepts of 'woman' and 'man'.

It’s kind of confusing to me how tras try to separate sex and gender but disregard that separation to validate themselves or just simply don’t understand that woman/man aren’t genders. They did a great job of pushing to separating the two, but cause harm by saying gender= brain, sex=genitals. because that’s not what gender means or has ever meant, so the implication always seems to be gender is your mind and reliant on the roles/stereotypes you prefer- which is incredibly regressive and sexist.

It's like so close yet so far off the mark. Gender has to be a thing that represents being sexed in the brain (that sounds terrible, if I think of a better way to word that I'll change it) because then gender becomes a biological affair and can be considered at least as valid and important as sex, if not more. One would think that if one recognizes a difference between the two then they would disregard the stereotypes or see that gender is an illusion.

My point is still that reality is what it is regardless of how someone interprets or perceives it. That doesn’t mean we all behave the same, as human experiences will always vary vastly, but it does mean that some things just are and aren’t true, no matter what. To put it in the context of this sub- TW can claim to be female, they definitively aren’t, and that will always be provable. The reality is, some TW can appear to be female and or change their legal documents to female, and argue that they are “legally female”- which... I have a lot to say about that, but it’s not untrue. But the reality also is that legally or not, appearing so or not, they still aren’t actually female human beings.

I get what you’re saying about not being able to tolerate reality- but frankly, as insensitive as it is to say, that’s a personal problem, and the solution to that inability should not be to force everyone else to conform you what you’d prefer reality to be, that’s invasive and violating, particularly when it’s so easily proven that what someone may prefer reality to be is not factual.

It certainly is an individual problem to be unable to accept reality, and it's one that shouldn't be forced on everyone else. I understand and appreciate GC efforts to reinforce and encourage acceptance of reality, because it is literally delusional to be out of touch with reality and believe untrue things in the face of evidence. Making peace with the way things actually are should really be a solution and goal for people with gender dysphoria and/or cross-sex identification, and it would do well to help such people that way as opposed to just going along with false or harmful beliefs. It seems better to shatter the illusion. As you say, there can be truth in something like being "legally female" while still not being female, and as long as that's acknowledged, then there shouldn't be any problems with that.

I sometimes wonder if this whole “trans umbrella”, non binary, trans gender thing is an attempt to make people who aren’t trans (either actually transsexual or the large umbrella of anyone who is gnc and agrees to be labeled trans even if there’s no real reason to) think that there are more trans people in the world than there are, as an attempt to normalize being trans or avoid exactly what I’m saying- that the trans community is too small to warrant the demands they are making. If there are more trans people acknowledged, maybe they think it will make more sense to bend to their wants and needs, if that makes sense? When, to me, it seems that when trans just meant transsexual, there were less issues between trans people and people who aren’t trans. It seems easier to say “trans(sexual)women make up a small percentage of people, and they need a certain degree of compromise to be safe” than to say “anyone who identifies as a woman is one, and they deserve access to whatever space any woman would have access to, and they are entitled to having their sense of identity affirmed and not questioned.” The former kind of encourages protection of a small and vulnerable group*, the latter just tells women to deal with any male/man who demands inclusion and access to our spaces.

I absolutely love your theory, I think maybe you're not far from the truth. It seems like there really wasn't that much controversy and pushback when the conversation was more reasonable, but it's no surprise that now that there are so many more people who self-identify as trans or become trans that the demands are growing because there are accommodations and exceptions being requested that transsexuals never would have or wanted to ask/demand before. It's funny that there are so many trans people wanting to be recognized as trans and being so vocal about it when that just seems so counterintuitive to transitioning, or at least what transition was meant to help with originally. It makes me wonder if it's because they don't want to or just can't blend in as the sex they want to be seen as. It's incredibly annoying and frustrating to have the worst problems that trans people face revolve around petty things like preferred pronouns and the idea that it's transphobic to acknowledge sex. That's just embarrassing to me. I don't blame anyone for being fed up with gender ideology and trans people because of how nasty people are getting over rather trivial things, then further demanding more to the point of violating others' rights and space; the behavior is psychopathic.

I would hope it's helpful to set better examples. A new therapist I'm seeing wanted to start a support group for trans people, and she asked me to participate and help lead it with her (hence my post a bit back about leading a group!). I'm very uncomfortable with it because of bad experiences I've had, but I'm trying to use it as an opportunity to set a better example by being completely honest and frank (in a nice way), acknowledging sex and trying to keep these poor kids grounded (they aren't children, I'm just older than most of them). I see the positive feedback loop of unquestioning affirmation happening there, it's very weird and worrisome, it's evident how people can become removed from reality more and more with this 'soft' brainwashing.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree with everything you said. I think the part about the current narrative being counterintuitive is a really good point. I always wonder how the current tra narrative was interpreted by “transmed” people. I always kind of assumed that it would be incredibly frustrating.