Cont: Trans Women are not Women II: The Bath Of Khan

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Well, when the problem is one of definitions, discussion can't go very far indeed, and here you're using either a very broad definition of transphobia, or interpreting Rolfe's posts uncharitably in order to fit them into that definition.

No, you didn't, Archie. You are _adding_ information and interpretation over her words and then claiming that that's what she posted.

And now you're doing it to me! I gave you three of your points, sure. I specifically did NOT give you that she attributed these views to all women, however. She's also clarified the 'asylum' bit so I have to take that one away from you now.

And there you go again, using language to make something appear as something else. "Pretending", as if I'm playing some sort of game.

No, how about you try addressing my responses to your post rather than try to handwave them en masse?

I'm sorry I would love to address the substance of your posts but there isn't really much substance there. You simply deny everything. It's also noticeable that you are prepared to define things in a very narrow way when it suits and in a very broad way when it suits. So we see when you go through the examples I gave that some of them are denied because 'those weren't the specific words used, you can't add context and interpretation' and others because 'well those were the exact words used but sometimes in language you need to consider the context and interpret things to get the true meaning'

In other words, you are always going to find a way to say that it isn't transphobia. And you are going to ignore and handwave away any argument that shows it is. And will be completely unwilling to engage with any analogy to other forms of bigotry because they might show the flaws in your argument.

As for 'asylum' being 'clarified' - laughable.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Yes, we've been over all this before, and nobody of the "transwomen are women" crowd has been able to provide a proper definition of "woman" so that their claim would be true - as I was talking to Rolfe about. So until they manage to do so, I'll keep considering their claims for what they are, incoherent rambling. Just because people have been rambling incoherently for a lot of time doesn't suddenly make their claims coherent, let alone true.

"I've rambled incoherently before, therefor my claims are now coherent!"

Argument by definition is a nonsense - nobody is able to define anything to sufficient clarity that it applies to 100% of cases without circularity.

Two definitions of women that are perfectly coherent and would include transwomen:

1. A woman is any person which the law recognises as a woman - i.e. a person assigned female at birth or who was assigned male at birth but has subsequently legally changed gender.
2. A woman is any person who consistently identifies as a woman.

You may not like these definitions and that is fine but let's again not pretend that somehow these definitions are less coherent than the idea that a woman is an adult human who has gone through a biological pathway that we deem to be the female path, except in the small percentage of cases where they aren't and we call them women anyway (but only if I am happy that they don't look too manly or happen to have a bulge in their shorts in one picture)

 

[Belz...]

You simply deny everything.

So, one minute I give you some points, and you even commented on that, and the next I deny "everything". You're simply not being fair, here. I'm not denying everything. I'm telling you that you are seeing more in those posts than what there is.

It's also noticeable that you are prepared to define things in a very narrow way when it suits and in a very broad way when it suits. So we see when you go through the examples I gave that some of them are denied because 'those weren't the specific words used, you can't add context and interpretation'

I was hoping you'd use those comments of mine a an indication to read Rolfe's posts more carefully and see where you went wrong. But I see now that that's pointless. I thought we were having a more constructive conversation than usual, but it's clear that you think you _can't_ be wrong about this. You seemed open minded at first but as soon as I didn't wholly agree with your examples you clammed up.

In other words, you are always going to find a way to say that it isn't transphobia.

And you want to see transphobia everywhere. See how constructive it is to address the arguer instead of the argument? In fact, this entire discussion about transphobia is nothing but that. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Rolfe is transphobic. So what? What does that change about the substance of what she says? It's a distraction.

As for 'asylum' being 'clarified' - laughable.

Speaking of denying everything, that isn't a counter-argument. Her explanation actually makes sense of her original wording.

 

[Rolfe]

Indeed, the thought of a "lunatic asylum" didn't even cross my mind. I was thinking entirely of the "asylum-seekers" meaning.

 

[Rolfe]

See how constructive it is to address the arguer instead of the argument? In fact, this entire discussion about transphobia is nothing but that. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Rolfe is transphobic. So what? What does that change about the substance of what she says? It's a distraction.

You know that's a good point. This "transphobia" smear is just a device to shut down debate. It reminds me of the "conspiracy theorist" smear in the Lockerbie debate. OK, you've called me a bad name, now how do you refute my evidence as regards the position of the bomb suitcase in the luggage container?

I am implacably opposed to allowing men, males, whatever, free entry as of right to women's single-sex spaces and categories. You can call that transphobia if you like. You can call it Reginald if you like, it doesn't change the argument. Women have single-sex spaces and categories provided for by law, for very good reasons, and a hundred years ago women fought hard for these. I think we need a better argument than "transphobia" to justify the complete abolition of all these hard-won rights.

 

[kellyb]

Which includes losing our language. Woman means adult human female and if you want it to mean something else you're going to have to go through a large number of very angry women adult human females. (I mean, seriously, if you appropriate the word "women" to mean something else, what do we call ourselves? Just stoppit.).

My own perspective is that I find sometimes using the word ciswoman to be useful and just adding clarity. It's a word I've been using for about a decade now, long before "peak trans" when it seems like everyone lost their minds.

With the definitions of the word woman, I think this might be some "I think your definition sucks", and the other person going "Well your definition is really the one that sucks" argument, and that's just what that is.

With language, two different, competing, mutually hostile definitions can coexist. Marriage no longer means "one man and one woman," although most default heuristic ("cisheteronormative", sigh) assumptions made by most people about marriage are still the traditional ones. The "sacred", "holy unions" between men and women haven't been affected at all by gay folks also getting married.

I personally don't feel like I'm being robbed of anything by the existence of a vision, or "lens" of a social model where transwomen are a type of woman, as are ciswomen. Yes, the nonsense with sports is absolute outrage-inducing madness, and the prison issue is frightening and dangerous. But we can put the actual problem issues in their own boxes, deal with them as the problem to be tackled that they are, and mostly go about our days just being nice and accepting of one another, taking every individual on a case by case basis, like with everything and everyone, I think.

All that said, there is a strong case to be made and defended that the "traditional" definition of the word "woman" (and man) absolutely must remain a completely legitimate one. I hate to potentially go all "think about the children!" fallacy with this, but it's not generally healthy for kids to go through some obsessive gender self-questioning thing, which does appear to be happening more and more frequently. And gender self-questioning seems to be uniquely obsessive and prone to becoming "toxic" compared to other stuff, like figuring out approximately where one is at on the gay-straight spectrum. Maybe kids are engaging in harmful cognitive behaviors which result in things like "cutting" less now, and have simply substituted this for that, which in turn was apparently substituted for bulimia purging. But anyway, retaining the original definition of the word woman and some of the accompanying "cisnormativity" probably is healthy for most humans under, say, 30, especially preteens and teens. Girls need to know that it's within the spectrum of "normal girl or woman" to be not particularly feminine, and/or have more male friends than female, be lesbian or not or whatever, and it doesn't mean (or at least necessarily mean) that you're "really" a guy in some esoteric, quasi-scientific way, and that the science on how that all works is still messy, and the metaphysics is total garbage. Whatever you do, don't toxicly obsess over gender identity. Do or pick your thing, and get a normal, healthy hobby. LOL

Good god, this stuff is so complicated, and the research is still incomplete, and some of the best research is controversial to the point of being considered nearly blasphemy, to where you have to worry about the careers of the researchers who dare explore the social contagion factors at play here. Ugh.

 

[Meadmaker]

Right so let's see if the usual suspects jump on the circularity here as they would with ANY other definition. I'm not going to hold my breath.

I'm afraid you are mistaken. Although the word "female" is used twice in Rolfe's definition, it is used once as a noun, and once as an adjective. Her definition is not circular. "Female developmental pathway" is shorthand for something like "the pathway whose normal expression is the production of ova".


It's possible to play word games with this sort of thing. For example, one response would be, "Ok then. I'll say, 'A female is anyone who identifies as female.' Noun and adjective. That's not circular!" And that would be right, but only about the circularity. The problem with that definition applied to transwomen is that while they identify as female, they aren't actually female. So now you have a definition that doesn't serve any purpose. You are a female if you identify as female whether or not you are female. "A female" now is a useless term. It becomes the set of all people who declare themselves to be members of that set, whether or not they have the characteristics that define membership in the set. Oh, wait. The definitive characteristic of the set has been changed from a set of biological characteristics, to declaring yourself part of the set. By definition, if you declare yourself part of the set, you are part of the set. It is not technically circular, but it's useless.

All of these word games mask something far more important, though.

If Rachel McKinnon is a woman, then what the hell is a woman? I thought I knew what a woman was, but she isn't it. So, where did I go wrong? What, in reality, is a woman? How can I tell if someone is one, or is not? By asking them?

Well, darn it, here we go again. Does that work for any other characteristic than sex? I mean....gender...or....something? How about Napoleonness? You say that Napoleon is a dead French general, but I assure you that I am not dead, nor French, nor a general, but I am Napoleon! And don't you dare call me delusional. Of course I am not that original Napoleon. He's dead! I am a trans-Napoleon, which means that everyone must recognize me as actually being Napoleon.

And, I am sure that if you knew me, you would be willing to go along with my assertion of Trans-Napoleon identity, right up until the point where I tried to conscript you in the army and go fight the Russians. And the same thing is true with trans folks. We'll go along, up to a point. Some of us will go farther than others, but once you start taking medals from girls who deserve to be state track champions, or once you want to take a shower next to my daughter, we draw the line.

This whole definition thing gets into a lot of sophomoric babble, but that's because the actual, underlying, reality has been swept away. Forget definitions as some sort of word play exercise. Instead, tell me what a woman is, and try to make it make sense.

 

[Belz...]

How about Napoleonness? You say that Napoleon is a dead French general, but I assure you that I am not dead, nor French, nor a general, but I am Napoleon! And don't you dare call me delusional. Of course I am not that original Napoleon. He's dead! I am a trans-Napoleon, which means that everyone must recognize me as actually being Napoleon.

And, I am sure that if you knew me, you would be willing to go along with my assertion of Trans-Napoleon identity, right up until the point where I tried to conscript you in the army and go fight the Russians. And the same thing is true with trans folks. We'll go along, up to a point.

Dammit I hate it when people use my own arguments better than me.

 

[kellyb]

Women have single-sex spaces and categories provided for by law, for very good reasons, and a hundred years ago women fought hard for these.

Do you have any links or sources on the history there?

My city is considered one of the three most historically LGBTQ-friendly cities in the US, and the only one in the deep south, and I was completely accustomed to drag queens/"transvestites"/crossdressers in the women's bathrooms by age 17 or 18, and it's never been a problem for anyone I've ever known.

I feel like I don't even understand "the other side" of that issue whatsoever.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

So, one minute I give you some points, and you even commented on that, and the next I deny "everything". You're simply not being fair, here. I'm not denying everything. I'm telling you that you are seeing more in those posts than what there is.

I was hoping you'd use those comments of mine a an indication to read Rolfe's posts more carefully and see where you went wrong. But I see now that that's pointless. I thought we were having a more constructive conversation than usual, but it's clear that you think you _can't_ be wrong about this. You seemed open minded at first but as soon as I didn't wholly agree with your examples you clammed up.

If you want to show me where I went wrong then perhaps attempt to show it rather than simply say 'you are wrong' Because I gave you plenty of examples and I showed you what I thought was problematic.

When someone says transpeople are 'delusional' for example. Why in your view is that just fine?

And you want to see transphobia everywhere. See how constructive it is to address the arguer instead of the argument? In fact, this entire discussion about transphobia is nothing but that. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Rolfe is transphobic. So what? What does that change about the substance of what she says? It's a distraction.

A distraction from what? From simply allowing transphobic people to be transphobic and not be called out on it? You will notice that I did also engage on the substance of what she says, for example the incorrect claim around what it means to legally change to be a woman. That wasn't exactly useful either.

The thing is when racist posters here are being racist I am quite happy to point out their racism, when Islamophobic posters are being Islamophobic I'm quite happy to point that out too and when transphobic posters are being transphobic I will do that too?

What does it benefit anyone? It gives people a chance to demonstrate good faith. If they are being transphobic and genuinely want to engage on the issues without causing unnecessary distress then they would stop doing it. It seems perfectly possible to discuss any genuine concerns without being transphobic. But just repeatedly asserting transphobic talking points and rehashing transphobic propagana isn't really engaging on the issues either is it?

Speaking of denying everything, that isn't a counter-argument. Her explanation actually makes sense of her original wording.

Except nobody uses the term that way so we are talking about a very odd turn of phrase which just so happens to coincidentally align with something that would be much more negative?

Seriously I googled 'THE asylum for refugees' and there were no results. I did the same for 'THE asylum for Muslims' and got 1 result referring to 1940s Libya which is unclear what it refers to. On the other hand 'the asylum for the insane' gives 100k results.

Yes people talk about granting asylum to refugees but they don't call the place the arrive 'the asylum' for them.

So again, it seems that you are willing to accept any old explanation in defence of transphobia and will nit-pick and split hairs over any allegation made.

 

[Rolfe]

Do you have any links or sources on the history there?

My city is considered one of the three most historically LGBTQ-friendly cities in the US, and the only one in the deep south, and I was completely accustomed to drag queens/"transvestites"/crossdressers in the women's bathrooms by age 17 or 18, and it's never been a problem for anyone I've ever known.

I feel like I don't even understand "the other side" of that issue whatsoever.

There were no women's sanitary facilities in public. Women were expected to stay at home and only leave for short errands. Men liked it that way. It was described by some campaigners as "the urinary leash". Eventually the efforts of the women activists prevailed, and in addition department stores realised the advantages of providing facilities for women shoppers.

You may be comfortable with men in the ladies' room but many many women are not. There are women who, for cultural and religious reasons, are forbidden from entering such a space and will be barred from public life if there are no single-sex sanitary facilities. I have to wonder why "drag queens/transvestites/cross-dressers" who are clearly male would want to invade the ladies' room, and indeed why they think they have any right to.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You know that's a good point. This "transphobia" smear is just a device to shut down debate. It reminds me of the "conspiracy theorist" smear in the Lockerbie debate. OK, you've called me a bad name, now how do you refute my evidence as regards the position of the bomb suitcase in the luggage container?

I am implacably opposed to allowing men, males, whatever, free entry as of right to women's single-sex spaces and categories. You can call that transphobia if you like. You can call it Reginald if you like, it doesn't change the argument. Women have single-sex spaces and categories provided for by law, for very good reasons, and a hundred years ago women fought hard for these. I think we need a better argument than "transphobia" to justify the complete abolition of all these hard-won rights.

If you don't want to be 'smeared' with the term transphobe I have a radical suggestion - stop it. If you have valid points you can make them without bathing every single contribution in nothing but vitriol and contempt for transwomen.

Because if people's view of you as a transphobe doesn't change the 'genuine concerns' then nor does your painting transwomen as delusional perverts.

The problem as I see it is that once you take away the transphobia and emotional claims of transwomen being delusional perverts the 'genuine concerns' seem to kind of disappear as well and simply become 'I don't like it' which I don't think is any basis for policy and on the face of it appears to be no different than not wanting to share a space with a black person or a homosexual.

And every single time I point that out the response is NEVER 'it's different because of X Y and Z' it's always just a defensive 'how dare you call me a bigot!' or worse still 'a counter accusation of being a misogynist'

 

[Rolfe]

If I don't want you to call me nasty names I should stop holding the opinions I hold? That's not much of an argument you know.

 

[Belz...]

If you want to show me where I went wrong then perhaps attempt to show it rather than simply say 'you are wrong' Because I gave you plenty of examples and I showed you what I thought was problematic.

You quoted things you thought were transphobic. I pointed out that in several cases, what you claim Rolfe is saying is not what she's saying. What she's saying is in the quote you provided, or in the larger post. What else do you want me to explain? You're the one who needs to make the connection between Rolfe's words and your interpretation.

When someone says transpeople are 'delusional' for example.

Again, not what she said. Maybe you're right and she thinks that, but that's not what she said.

A distraction from what?

For pete's sake, Archie, the answer to that's in the paragraph you quoted! The pattern of you simply not reading the posts you respond to continues.

The thing is when racist posters here are being racist I am quite happy to point out their racism

And if what's been pointed at isn't racism, I'm quite happy to point that out.

What does it benefit anyone? It gives people a chance to demonstrate good faith.

The problem with labels and accusations like this is that you get to interpret their words in such a way, or just make up stuff, to put other people on the defensive and distract from the substance of their arguments and points. And if they don't admit that your accusations are correct, because your interpretations can never be wrong, you can then accuse them of not being honest about their position. There's no productivity to this line of argument, but it's effective in smearing people and shutting down debate.

Except nobody uses the term that way

Now this is completely ridiculous. Because of the "the" in front? Come on, you can't possibly believe that.

So again, it seems that you are willing to accept any old explanation in defence of transphobia and will nit-pick and split hairs over any allegation made.

Yes, because saying that X isn't transphobia is defending transphobia. Like saying that a tree is not a forest is defending forests. Do you listen to yourself? Not only are you again addressing the arguer rather than the argument, but you're again forgetting that I could just as easily say "it seems that you are unwilling to accept any explanation that contradicts your interpretation". Neither of these is useful for the discussion, but it's becoming increasingly clear that discussion is not what you're interested in.

This aggressive, accusatory attitude, to me, indicates that you are not really concerned about trans people at all, but rather about showing off how pro-trans you are, which is why you can't even admit to being wrong on any of your statements.

 

[Belz...]

If I don't want you to call me nasty names I should stop holding the opinions I hold?

That is EXACTLY Archie's position. All that matters is that he labeled it transphobic, and the mere label is enough to make it so. At that point you should abandon that line of thinking and get with the program. Conform, dammit!

It's just virtue signaling. To be frank, I don't agree with you on a lot of points, here, but this sort of browbeating is unacceptable.

 

[Strawberry]

If you don't want to be 'smeared' with the term transphobe I have a radical suggestion - stop it. If you have valid points you can make them without bathing every single contribution in nothing but vitriol and contempt for transwomen.

Because if people's view of you as a transphobe doesn't change the 'genuine concerns' then nor does your painting transwomen as delusional perverts.

The problem as I see it is that once you take away the transphobia and emotional claims of transwomen being delusional perverts the 'genuine concerns' seem to kind of disappear as well and simply become 'I don't like it' which I don't think is any basis for policy and on the face of it appears to be no different than not wanting to share a space with a black person or a homosexual.

And every single time I point that out the response is NEVER 'it's different because of X Y and Z' it's always just a defensive 'how dare you call me a bigot!' or worse still 'a counter accusation of being a misogynist'

Women not wanting men in spaces where we take our clothes off or pull our underwear down has nothing in common with bigots not wanting to share spaces with black or gay people. That has to be among the most immature accusations I've ever seen levied at any poster here.

 

[Rolfe]

Archie has a wife and daughter. I'm quite surprised by his position on this.

 

[kellyb]

I have to wonder why "drag queens/transvestites/cross-dressers" who are clearly male would want to invade the ladies' room, and indeed why they think they have any right to.

To be able to apply makeup, fix their hair, maybe talk in quiet on the phone for a second, and of course pee, in a place where there's almost no risk of some drunk redneck deciding to beat the **** out of them.

They're never, ever, ever just there, like, creepily lurking. They completely blend in because they're just doing the normal bathroom things for a normal amount of time.

I've always felt like they made the women's bathrooms safer, and I bet if I were to take a poll on facebook of women my age in my city, other women would overwhelmingly agree, but Memphis is, like I said, Big Gay Historically Drag Friendly Central, and I hang with a very "social justicey" crowd, so the poll would be biased.

People who are not comfortable with them just don't go into the city limits proper anyway, and avoid "the real core city" like the plague, because it's filled people of all kinds of freaky-to-many subcultures, as well as often being the city with the highest homicide rate in the country (and we're a rather violent country!) because of poverty-related gangs and drugs.

eta: regarding "why they think they have any right to"...looking back here, I think it probably started with ciswomen inviting their transvestite/drag queen friends in to use the lady's room at the gay bars, when gay bars were a thing. Then (at least here) almost everything about "gay bar culture" eclipsed and kind of took over the most "normal" bars/venues/restaurants/coffee shops etc and so on in terms of who was not looked at funny where.

 

[Strawberry]

To be able to apply makeup, fix their hair, maybe talk in quiet on the phone for a second, and of course pee, in a place where there's almost no risk of some drunk redneck deciding to beat the **** out of them.

They're never, ever, ever just there, like, creepily lurking. They completely blend in because they're just doing the normal bathroom things for a normal amount of time.

I've always felt like they made the women's bathrooms safer, and I bet if I were to take a poll on facebook of women my age in my city, other women would overwhelmingly agree, but Memphis is, like I said, Big Gay Historically Drag Friendly Central, and I hang with a very "social justicey" crowd, so the poll would be biased.

People who are not comfortable with them just don't go into the city limits proper anyway, and avoid "the real core city" like the plague, because it's filled people of all kinds of freaky-to-many subcultures, as well as often being the city with the highest homicide rate in the country (and we're a rather violent country!) because of poverty-related gangs and drugs.

So women who aren't comfortable with men in the ladies room have to simply self-exclude from their own city centre. Where is the respect for women in that?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I'm afraid you are mistaken. Although the word "female" is used twice in Rolfe's definition, it is used once as a noun, and once as an adjective. Her definition is not circular. "Female developmental pathway" is shorthand for something like "the pathway whose normal expression is the production of ova".

I see what you are saying but I think you are missing something here because it does end up being circular and/or not a complete definition.

First of all you seem to just be redefining female to mean 'the person of a biology which normally produces ova'. 'Normally' is a troublesome word in definitions. If someone is born a 'woman' but doesn't produce ova are they still a 'woman'. Is that still the same 'pathway'? And how did we decide that this is the one and only pathway that produces 'women' anyway? Other than by defining the outputs as 'women' and then looking at which pathways led to those outputs?

Nonsense wordplay? Quite possibly. But it's not my argument that these kind of definitional games are useful. Because if you stare long enough at any definition it breaks down. Words are just verbal shorthand and there are always going to be problems. So seeking some silver bullet definition is never going to be the answer.

It's possible to play word games with this sort of thing. For example, one response would be, "Ok then. I'll say, 'A female is anyone who identifies as female.' Noun and adjective. That's not circular!" And that would be right, but only about the circularity. The problem with that definition applied to transwomen is that while they identify as female, they aren't actually female. So now you have a definition that doesn't serve any purpose.

You are assuming your conclusion here. If a transwoman is female then the definition holds true. And by the definition then a transwoman is female. So it is internally consistent.

You are a female if you identify as female whether or not you are female. "A female" now is a useless term. It becomes the set of all people who declare themselves to be members of that set, whether or not they have the characteristics that define membership in the set. Oh, wait. The definitive characteristic of the set has been changed from a set of biological characteristics, to declaring yourself part of the set. By definition, if you declare yourself part of the set, you are part of the set. It is not technically circular, but it's useless.

It's as useless or useful as any other definition for most if not all purposes. it's only a problem for you because you are trying to layer on an old definition of female and seeing you get different answers. That's only to be expected if you use a different definition. Again you are just assuming your conclusion circularly. You 'know' what a woman is and don't like definitions that lead you any other answer.

All of these word games mask something far more important, though.

If Rachel McKinnon is a woman, then what the hell is a woman? I thought I knew what a woman was, but she isn't it. So, where did I go wrong? What, in reality, is a woman? How can I tell if someone is one, or is not? By asking them?

Maybe you can't tell? Or maybe you can tell most of the time but not for many edge cases? Why would that matter? I'm not sure why this is 'something far more important'. It seems the exact opposite. It seems like something trivial and pointless.

Well, darn it, here we go again. Does that work for any other characteristic than sex? I mean....gender...or....something? How about Napoleonness? You say that Napoleon is a dead French general, but I assure you that I am not dead, nor French, nor a general, but I am Napoleon! And don't you dare call me delusional. Of course I am not that original Napoleon. He's dead! I am a trans-Napoleon, which means that everyone must recognize me as actually being Napoleon.

Isn't that how most things in life work actually? I mean take race. Is Barack Obama black? If he told you he identified as black are you going to correct him? If he told you he identified as white are you going to correct him? There is a degree of subjectivity about pretty much all groupings and generally I would prefer to err on the side of what people tell me they identify as rather than allow other people to act as gatekeepers. Because other people acting as gatekeepers never seems to end very well. I'm certainly not going to defer to the KKK to define who is black or white for example.

And, I am sure that if you knew me, you would be willing to go along with my assertion of Trans-Napoleon identity, right up until the point where I tried to conscript you in the army and go fight the Russians. And the same thing is true with trans folks. We'll go along, up to a point. Some of us will go farther than others, but once you start taking medals from girls who deserve to be state track champions, or once you want to take a shower next to my daughter, we draw the line.

This to me just reads as basically... I am prepared to accept things and be open minded as long as I don't actually have to do anything. The minute I actually have any of my prejudices challenged in reality I am going to become a bigot. Because i am prepared to SAY I accept people, but not actually willing to accept people. It's no different than saying 'hey people can be gay if they like, but don't start getting married.'

This whole definition thing gets into a lot of sophomoric babble, but that's because the actual, underlying, reality has been swept away. Forget definitions as some sort of word play exercise. Instead, tell me what a woman is, and try to make it make sense.

I agree that the definition thing is a nonsense. But then you just repeat it again at the end.

A woman is whoever we say is a woman. It's as simple as that. And the same for a man. The same for a Muslim. The same for a black person. They are just words we made up. Like all words.