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

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

That isn't what he said-- you know, it's not just a pattern with you. It's a constant.

It is exactly what he said. Jesus.

Sure it does. What's a woman? Whoever identifies as a woman. Ok, what's a woman? Whoever identifies as a woman! You can't identify as something that doesn't have a meaning outside the identification.

Repeating the same question and getting the same answer does not make it circular.

You can absolutely identify as something that doesn't have a definition outside of that identification. That's where you are going wrong. People don't use dictionaries to define their identities.

You just said "nor does mine", which means that the biological definition ISN'T circular. Make up your mind.

How is it circular?

I already explained. The biological definition offered earlier basically says that a woman is a person who has gone down the biological pathway that produces people we call women. If you try to tie it down beyond that then you start having problems with excluding people that you don't want to exclude and having to include things like 'normally' which means there are exceptions.

Yes, that's the nature of definitions. How is that a problem?

If your definition of woman excludes people most people would call a woman then I think it's a problem for the definition.

 

[theprestige]

That isn't what he said-- you know, it's not just a pattern with you. It's a constant.



Sure it does. What's a woman? Whoever identifies as a woman. Ok, what's a woman? Whoever identifies as a woman! You can't identify as something that doesn't have a meaning outside the identification.

I think it's a little more complicated than that.

A "woman" is essentially a social construct, based on but not entirely encompassed by, a biological fact.

The current controversy is about whether you can be a woman by claiming participation in the social construct, without possessing the underlying biological fact.

It's also about whether taking steps to more closely approximate the biological fact better justifies claiming participation in the construct.

And it's also about deciding what the social construct actually means, and what it means to participate, and whether participation is really required for recognition.

This is not a conundrum you can solve by simple pursuit of a non-circular definition of "woman". You'll need to actually refactor the entire social construct. This is a cyclopean task that will take several generations to complete, and probably won't be as successful as the idealists imagine, but probably more successful than the cynics predict.

 

[Rolfe]

A "woman" is essentially a social construct, based on but not entirely encompassed by, a biological fact.

No, it really isn't.

 

[Belz...]

It is exactly what he said.

Exactly what he said, you say. Ok let's look:

This one's at least coherent, I'll give you that. It's also useless, because the question then becomes: how does the law define "woman"?

Nope, nothing in there about it having to answer "all" questions. He only asked the one: how does the law define "woman". It's not only a single, simple question, but it's also a fundamental one.

Repeating the same question and getting the same answer does not make it circular.

Are you doing this on purpose? The point isn't that you ask the question again: the point is that in order to understand the definition, you must understand the words of that definition, and one of those words is the word that the definition defines! That is CIRCULAR.

You can absolutely identify as something that doesn't have a definition outside of that identification. That's where you are going wrong. People don't use dictionaries to define their identities.

Who said anything about dictionaries? Dictionaries only take note of the usage. But the usage exists. Sure, you can identify as a babghirkhadt, but if that meant nothing to no one, even yourself, then you're not really identifying as anything.

I'm baffled that I have to explain the basics of language to a grown adult.

The biological definition offered earlier basically says that a woman is a person who has gone down the biological pathway that produces people we call women.

No, that's not the biological definition. That's your phrasing of it, but that's not it. Again, this is your constant: misrepresent and then pretend that this was the original version.

If you try to tie it down beyond that then you start having problems with excluding people that you don't want to exclude and having to include things like 'normally' which means there are exceptions.

Every functional definition will have exceptions.

If your definition of woman excludes people most people would call a woman then I think it's a problem for the definition.

Whom does it exclude, specifically?

 

[theprestige]

No, it really isn't.

I'm not going to get into a slapfight with you about terminology. There is a biological fact. There is a social construct based on that fact. "Woman" is the term I'm using for that construct. Unless your argument is that the construct doesn't exist, this is a pointless contradiction. Figure it out.

 

[Belz...]

I think it's a little more complicated than that.

A "woman" is essentially a social construct, based on but not entirely encompassed by, a biological fact.

I'm pretty sure that "adult homo sapiens female" is not a social construct.

This is not a conundrum you can solve by simple pursuit of a non-circular definition of "woman". You'll need to actually refactor the entire social construct. This is a cyclopean task that will take several generations to complete, and probably won't be as successful as the idealists imagine, but probably more successful than the cynics predict.

We've had a definition of the word "woman" that wasn't circular for millennia. I don't think taking trans issues into consideration requires us to redefine that term. The problem isn't the definition, or the "social construct", but that some want to include trans-women as actual women, rather than in their own category, or any other alternative.

 

[Belz...]

I'm not going to get into a slapfight with you about terminology. There is a biological fact. There is a social construct based on that fact. "Woman" is the term I'm using for that construct. Unless your argument is that the construct doesn't exist, this is a pointless contradiction. Figure it out.

I don't think it was historically the case that biological men were called women or vice-versa. I think it was always understood that "woman" was an adult female.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Note, the biological definition of female does not circle back on itself. There are two possible pathways of foetal development. One is taken by foetuses with a functional SRY gene and bioavailable androgens. We call that one "male". The other is taken by foetuses without a functional SRY gene, or (rarely) with complete androgen insensitivity. We call that one "female".

Is that clear enough and non-circular enough?

That defines female. I can therefore say, for brevity, that a female person is someone whose body developed along the female pathway as a foetus. So quit with the unthinking and unsceptical gotchas.

Just for clarity, and I am always open to being educated, people with AIS who are genetically male are by this definition female? Always?

 

[Rolfe]

I'm not going to get into a slapfight with you about terminology. There is a biological fact. There is a social construct based on that fact. "Woman" is the term I'm using for that construct. Unless your argument is that the construct doesn't exist, this is a pointless contradiction. Figure it out.

OK, Humpty Dumpty.

https://www.oed.com/oed2/00286737

 

[Strawberry]

I'm not going to get into a slapfight with you about terminology. There is a biological fact. There is a social construct based on that fact. "Woman" is the term I'm using for that construct. Unless your argument is that the construct doesn't exist, this is a pointless contradiction. Figure it out.

The social construct is femininity. Woman describes purely the biological reality, which is why butch lesbians and other non-conforming women are still always described as women.

 

[mgidm86]

Now y'all are arguing over the definition of the word woman. Thankfully most people aren't so confused.

 

[Belz...]

Now y'all are arguing over the definition of the word woman. Thankfully most people aren't so confused.

Oh, don't worry: I'm not confused at all.

The social construct is femininity. Woman describes purely the biological reality, which is why butch lesbians and other non-conforming women are still always described as women.

Thank you.

 

[Ziggurat]

How do women tell if another woman is a danger?

I mean that teenage girl over there might be a psycho killer with a machete.

Or one of the 64,000 female child sex abusers in the UK.

We don't know.

How do women know if the guy talking to you in a nightclub is a nice guy or whether he is going to drug and rape you?

We don't know.

All of these are real risks, the question is how to we assess and respond to these risks.

Quite so. And males, being larger and stronger than females, pose more of a risk to females, who are smaller and weaker, than other females. Yes, there are lots of female child sexual predators. But note the word you had to include: child sexual predators. They are overwhelmingly women who abuse children in their care, not strangers in restrooms. Stranger sexual assault is overwhelmingly conducted by men. This is not a mystery, everyone knows it.

But you don't seem to think any of that should make any difference to how people assess risk or take steps to protect themselves.

 

[d4m10n]

The social construct is femininity. Woman describes purely the biological reality, which is why butch lesbians and other non-conforming women are still always described as women.

Your preferred defintion probably cannot be the same one intended by those who utter sentences such as "Trans women are women."

 

[Strawberry]

Now y'all are arguing over the definition of the word woman. Thankfully most people aren't so confused.

I'm not confused and nor should anyone else be. You all know what a woman is because you all came out of one. And I suspect even Archie has always known what a woman is whenever he's been selecting who to be intimate with in the bedroom.

 

[Strawberry]

Your preferred defintion probably cannot be the same one intended by those who utter sentences such as "Trans women are women."

Transwomen are male so no, obviously not.

 

[d4m10n]

Transwomen are male so no, obviously not.

Shouldn't we try to understand what meaning they are trying to convey, though?

 

[Strawberry]

Shouldn't we try to understand what meaning they are trying to convey, though?

What makes you think I haven't? And the more I understand the less I want to share female spaces with anyone who isn't female.

 

[Belz...]

What makes you think I haven't? And the more I understand the less I want to share female spaces with anyone who isn't female.

Now, come on. Archie and myself are entirely harmless. What have you got to lose?

 

[Strawberry]

Now, come on. Archie and myself are entirely harmless. What have you got to lose?

The harmless men are all in the men's room. Pretty soon the safest option for women will be the men's room because all the pervs will be in the women's.