New definition of woman just dropped

submitted by Datachost from imgur.com

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]proc0 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

This ideology is fundamentally illogical. They will never arrive at a reasonable conclusion by playing label games and re-categorizing existing categories. There is an obvious difference between trans people and non-trans, which is that non-trans people don't need to transition or change their sex/gender in any way. One group needs changing, the other doesn't. Therefore trans-women are not JUST women, they are women who transitioned, and denying this is denying reality. On top of that, forcing people to deny reality is bullying, gaslighting, and totalitarian.

[–]r2d2_21 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Therefore trans-women are not JUST women, they are women who transitioned

The problem is that as long as we entertain that idea, their delusions won't stop. We need to be real here: trans women are NOT women. They're men.

[–]proc0 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

That's a tricky one. A man doesn't think he's a woman, because it directly conflicts with masculinity. So considering them men is not as precise either. They're male, but not necessarily a man, and also not exactly a woman, therefore just adding a prefix to woman solves the problem, IMHO. As long as that distinction is present the boundary is clear. The danger is in letting the movement get away with erasing boundaries to only create illogical/delusional categories.

[–]r2d2_21 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

They're male, but not necessarily a man

If they're male then they're men. It's part of the definition of the words.

(reading from other comments in the thread)

Yes, there are stereotypes for men and women that don't exactly involve reproduction. If you look for a lumberjack, it's more likely that it will be a man than a woman. Or a ballet dancer will most probably be a woman. Stereotypes ultimately derive from statistics and probability, but they don't imply causation. A woman that becomes a lumberjack won't become a man. A man that takes ballet lessons won't turn into a woman.

The definitions of men, women, male and female all come from our reproductive roles. We can derive roles and trends after that, but our biological reality doesn't change just because we start following the trends of the other sex.

A man that gets surgery and hormones is still a man. A woman that gets surgery and hormones is still a woman. It doesn't matter how good they become at lying to themselves and society.

[–]proc0 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yes this is all true, but I'm not suggesting that men can literally be women, but rather that new labels could be used. These new labels can be cleverly close to "man" and "woman" because these labels already have some gray areas like tomboys and feminine men.

To boil it down, the main problem is self-identification, not labeling a woman as man necessarily. The problem is that when people ask to be treated as the opposite sex, they are actually asking for people to believe that they weren't born the way they were born. The labeling is not a big problem otherwise. We already use these shortened labels everywhere else. We shorten "website" into "site", "movie theater" into "theater", "bicycle" into "bike", and I don't see why "trans woman" can't be "woman" when the details aren't needed (*as long as it's clear... i.e. "bike" can be clarified to be "bicycle" or "motor bike").

[–]r2d2_21 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

We shorten "website" into "site", "movie theater" into "theater"

Within this same train of thought, we DON'T shorten “sea lion” into “lion” or “air fryer” into “fryer” because the adjective is actually crucial in the definition of these terms.

[–]proc0 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Well those differences are inherently important. A lion is a completely different species than a sea lion. I think dropping "trans" in a social situation isn't going to make a difference in many cases, which btw is NOT what the left is advocating for because I'm saying it's fine to know who is a real woman and who isn't. Additionally I don't think it should be forced or encouraged, or punished at all. I'm just saying the problem isn't really what we call them but the underlying framework of reality.

[–]r2d2_21 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A lion is a completely different species than a sea lion

The same way a trans woman is a completely different sex than a woman.

I'm just saying the problem isn't really what we call them but the underlying framework of reality.

And I'm saying that what we call them just makes the problem worse. The only way to fix it is to call them what they really are.

[–]bife_de_lomo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I'm interested in your thoughts here because I don't understand your reasoning. Masculinity and femininity don't have anything to do with whether you are or are not a man or woman, they are just the social constructs and expectations of what men and women "should" do or are "supposed" to be because they are men and women.

Very few people conform fully to society's expectations; whether you're a tomboy or a twink your behavior and expression doesn't alter the underlying reality.

[–]proc0 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The problem is that man/woman are loaded terms used in multiple contexts. We could use man/woman as synonyms for male/female, however the colloquial use of those terms goes beyond this attachment to biology. For example, we can ask the question: who is more of a man?... an athletic lumberjack with 4 kids that lives in the woods, or a feminine ballet dancer that is gay and lives with his parents? We could say both are men, but we can ALSO say one is more of a man than the other. The reason is because in certain contexts man/woman is also a way to measure people's masculinity/femininity. The more manly, the more masculinity, etc.

Therefore, it's possible to consider someone stretching that spectrum to such an extent that it is easier to just treat them as the opposite sex, because that's how they're presenting themselves on multiple levels. That said... the problem right now is that it is not enough to be polite, you must also believe it is 100% real. I'm just saying we can be polite and just call masculine people men, and feminine people women... as long as the ambiguity is not important. For example this goes out the door when dating, because it's important there.

[–]bife_de_lomo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Thanks for responding. I don't think that man/woman or male/female are synonymous because they aren't the same type of word. Man and woman are nouns, and male and female are adjectives. A female human is a woman.

I, unlike some on the sub, think there is utility in distinguishing gender from sex so we can talk about the things that men and women do in society that don't relate to their biological state, but nonetheless are commonplace social constructs. This is the masculine and feminine adjective of gender.

I would quite strongly disagree that there is such a thing as being "more of a woman" or "less of a man" based on conformity with gender stereotypes. This exposes the oppression of gender and my hope is that one day people won't be blackmailed into thinking they're less of a man because they're not an athletic lumberjack.

To your last point, I see a difference between masculine presentation in a woman (like a tomboy or a butch lesbian or even completely GNC), and a person who actually wants to change sex (a woman who thinks they are a man, or a transman). Would you say the former category are also men because they present as masculine? I can't quite tell if you feel it's easier or more polite to acquiesce, or whether you feel both sex and gender play a part in man- and woman-hood.

I think we might actually agree on quite a bit, but I think offering politeness is my line in the sand that I can't cross at this point.

[–]proc0 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Would you say the former category are also men because they present as masculine?

Tomboys are still women, but if someone goes all the way and gets surgery, lifts weights, and gets a beard transplant, then it's easier (more pragmatic) to just call them a man. This doesn't mean that they are literally a man, but rather that they are in a sub-category of man, those who were born as women. More precisely they are trans-men, but the prefix can easily be dropped like many other words that are shortened when the appropriate context exists.

I would quite strongly disagree that there is such a thing as being "more of a woman" or "less of a man" based on conformity with gender stereotypes. This exposes the oppression of gender and my hope is that one day people won't be blackmailed into thinking they're less of a man because they're not an athletic lumberjack.

Yeah I don't think people should assign a moral value to being more of a man or woman. They should just be descriptors/archetypes that perhaps is rude to box people in. For the purposes of arguing whether a trans people should be call what they want to be called, I think letting men be feminine is already opening the door to this possibility. If a man can be feminine, why can't they go full feminine, including makeup, cosmetic surgeries, etc.? If we're ok with stretching those archetypes, then in theory it would be ok if some men are extremely feminine to the point that for practical purposes in society we call them a woman. The very important caveat here, is that everybody would know that they are really a trans-woman, and that you drop the prefix to be polite.

In other words, unless we actually oppress people into strict gender role boxes (shaming gay men, etc), we're allowing for trans people to be part of society regardless of whether it's a mental illness or not. But stretching the archetypes doesn't mean that we deny reality when the details are necessary.