First, this was a very well-thought out and articulated post. I also got pulled into these debates because of my similar feelings about reality denial. Unfortunately, I think using the word word woman/women (as in TWAW) contributes to that reality denial. That is, 'woman' has traditionally been 'adult human female', so that once you suggest the definition is based on an internal identity, it's going to get conflated with the more precise/ traditional definition. I frequently see activists saying things like 'transwomen are women in the same way black women or Latina women or disabled women are women'.
Well, that's why I keep going back to how I was originally taught to understand this issue. Man/woman = gender, while male/female = sex. I was able to comprehend that, even if "gender" is still a bit of a nebulous concept. I'm willing to simply agree to not understand in that regard.
I do acknowledge that, under this system of thought, the separate conception of "gender" runs the risk of reinforcing traditional sexist stereotypes and roles. I don't like that fact, but I also acknowledge that (to a large degree) those roles are with us regardless. As long as they do not become imperatives - that is, anyone who acts THIS way is a man, period - I think it would be okay. I'd like a world where a man could wear a full-face of makeup and still identify as a man, if he wanted. Or, if he'd prefer to identify as a woman, he can do that too. But he can't identify as a
female, because that's biology. There's nothing any of us can do about biology. And there are, unfortunately, a handful of contexts where biology has to be the bottom line. I do not consider bathrooms to be one of them (though I'm well aware other women feel differently). I do consider many contact sports to be among them, though, because I simply can't see ANY way around it.
Anyway, that's what I was taught in a gender-focused sociology course 10 years ago. Apparently, that same position is now viewed as stunning bigotry in many circles.
As noted by many others, two additional issues with changing the definition are that it takes away the word we do have for adult human females, and (more importantly) it suggests that oppression of women/girls has been not been based on sex.
Not necessarily, because we'd still have "female" under the old system. But I get what you're saying.
If we draw a distinction between sex and gender, the whole thing works according to its own internal logic, at least. That's why I'm so obsessed with harping on that detail. I don't see it as a detail - I see it as the core.
It certainly is true that there is plenty of heterogeneity in belief, but I think it's clear that the denial crowd has a prominent voice. Shoot- you can get banned on twitter for questioning TWAW
I know, and I don't believe that is right. I disagree with censoring anything other than calls for violence or outright defamation, really. (Please note that I DO support the marking of objective misinformation on social media, and do not consider such to be censorship. Lest anyone think I'm dog-whistling here.) But Twitter gets to make their own rules, and so do most workplaces. I don't know where it will all end.
It's true that I don't find that belief logically consistent...
What I always wonder when I hear statements like the above is why men with attributes that are more often associated with women can't be men that don't conform to stereotypes (as opposed to calling themselves women).
Sorry if I seem like I'm repeating myself - once again, I have to go back to the gender/sex distinction here. It's logically consistent in the sense that a man can identify as a woman if "woman" is being used to refer to gender, not sex. It follows a logical pattern, whether or not I actually understand the content myself. (As a cis person, I obviously do not understand how identifying with a different gender feels.)
That seems to be true for a lot of the feminists I've been reading/following. That and that there does seem to be a significant amount of misogyny in the movement - I think for obvious reasons...
I might have to put on my tinfoil hat for a moment, but yeah - I've actually been wondering for awhile if some bad actors may have glommed onto the trans movement and started deliberately ****-stirring and trying to confuse the dialogue and push covert misogyny under the guise of progressivism. Whether they're redpillers or Russians or what, I don't know. But I think there might be some astroturf somewhere in there causing some of these problems, and the one trans person whom I know fairly well agrees with that suspicion.
Causing "the left" to engage in in-fighting and "eat itself" is a constant goal of subversive POS's on the internet. I don't think anyone could deny that. So why should feminism or trans-activism be immune? I would think they'd be juicy targets.
