Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[Ziggurat]

This is an accurate definition from Wikipedia.

It is not a definition of woman. It is a definition of transwoman, which depends on a definition of woman, and I still don't know what definition of woman you are using.

"A woman is a person who feels comfortable in a female body rather than a male body."

This thread has gone over this, and this has been the only definition that ever worked. No one likes it, because on the one hand it's hard to justify claims to "womanhood" based on this definition, and on the other hand it feels like creating a definition for the sake of creating a definition, like you're a very tired lexicographer with a deadline in the morning.

This definition does have the virtue of not being circular. But aside from the issue of how one tests it (your comment about justifying claims) and other objections raised already, I also suspect certain people will object to it on the basis that it's "truscum".

In any case, I don't think it's a definition that Boudicca90 will accept.

 

[Ziggurat]

Wait, do you mean instead that you agree with it because it's accurate?

Freudian slip.

 

[Boudicca90]

In your view, does support require that a person deny reality and accept every thing you say without challenge?

And I think you're significantly misrepresenting my position. I have now repeatedly tried to engage with you on how you and I can find a policy approach that allows YOU and people like you access to female services and facilities, but with denies people like Shupe that access. And I'll remind you that YOU don't want Shupe to have that access either.

I'm not misrepresenting you at all.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

 

[Olmstead]

I don't want to take the wind out of your sails, but this definition absolutely does not work for me. If there's one thing males cannot claim, it is access to the qualia that arise from being in a female body. I can't tell you what transwomen think they're comfortable with, but the one thing I know it can't be is the experience of being in a female body.

This IS lexicography class all over again.

"A woman is a person who BELIEVES that their more comfortable in a female body rather than a male body."

I'm sure this will go over well.

 

[Ziggurat]

I disagree,

A woman is a particular gender label that some people wish to conform to.
a man is also a particular gender label that some people wish to conform to.

In terms of providing a definition, you've just kicked the can down the road from not defining "man" and "woman" to not defining two "particular gender labels". It's like if I tell you I have a florp, you ask me what a florp is, and I tell you it's a kind of gizzlepat. You still know nothing about what I have.

 

[theprestige]

I also think this is a good definition. As a woman, I feel far more comfortable in a female body than I did a male one.

It's a terrible definition. For one thing, you still have the same body. All that changed is how you label it.

For another thing, biologically, you have no idea what it's like to be in a female body, since you don't have one and never did. You don't know what it's like to have ovaries instead of testes. You don't know what it's like to experience menstruation for the first time, or deal with it every month until menopause. You will never experience menopause. You have no idea what it's like to be on the receiving end of PIV intercourse. You have no idea what it's like to go through puberty without the virilizing effects of male testosterone. You will never know what it's like to face an elevated risk of osteoporosis that comes from having a female body. Socially, you don't know what feels like to be discriminated against because you're female, a persistent feeling that's with you every day of your life from the moment you first noticed as a child that you were getting treated differently because you were a girl. (You undoubtedly know what it's like to be discriminated against as a gay man and as a transwoman, but those aren't things females know anything about, and knowing about them doesn't make you female.)

For all you know, if your consciousness were transplanted into the body of a born woman, you would find it even worse than your current existence. Perpetrate shenanigans with language if you must, but don't arrogate to yourself valid lived experiences which are not yours, could not be yours, and at this point will never be yours.

 

[Boudicca90]

Wait, do you mean instead that you agree with it because it's accurate?

Yes, and as how I intended it. There have been a lot of definitions presented in this thread, but this is one of the better ones, so I agree with it.

This definition does have the virtue of not being circular. But aside from the issue of how one tests it (your comment about justifying claims) and other objections raised already, I also suspect certain people will object to it on the basis that it's "truscum".

In any case, I don't think it's a definition that Boudicca90 will accept.

As I said, it's a good definition. And it would have nothing to do with truscum, since it makes no judgement on if a person has gender dysphoria or not.

 

[theprestige]

I never said it was accurate because it's on Wikipedia. It's accurate because I agree with it. Being on Wikipedia is irrelevant.

Ah, a fellow nihilist-humanist. There aren't that many of us. At least this is a position I can respect. It does, however get trumped by myself, as I - not you! - am the true measure of all things.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not misrepresenting you at all.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

You can take your ball and go home if you want, you can cry about how mistreated you are if you want, but it won't actually do any good. People here are trying to engage with you about ideas. You are, quite frankly, doing a **** job at engaging in return. That statement is independent of the correctness of your ideas. Even if we presume that your position is correct, you have not managed to actually defend it in a coherent manner. And that starts with the rather unfortunate fact that you haven't even defined your position in a coherent manner.

Now, given how complicated these issues can get, I don't actually think it's so terrible to not have a well-defined position. I don't insist that you have some elaborate and completely self-consistent intellectual framework for all of it. But given that you don't (or at least aren't willing to present one), what I don't have much patience for is your own intolerance for people who just don't agree with you 100%. Without such an intellectual framework to make consistent evaluations, how can you even justify saying that they're wrong and you're right, let alone essentially calling them bad people for being wrong?

 

[Boudicca90]

Ah, a fellow nihilist-humanist. There aren't that many of us. At least this is a position I can respect. It does, however get trumped by myself, as I - not you! - am the true measure of all things.

It's because I accept that there will never be a definition that will please everybody. And I ultimately don't care about definitions. This board gets too bogged down in trivialities.

So there are definitions that are more accurate and ones that are less or inaccurate.

 

[Boudicca90]

You can take your ball and go home if you want, you can cry about how mistreated you are if you want, but it won't actually do any good. People here are trying to engage with you about ideas. You are, quite frankly, doing a **** job at engaging in return. That statement is independent of the correctness of your ideas. Even if we presume that your position is correct, you have not managed to actually defend it in a coherent manner. And that starts with the rather unfortunate fact that you haven't even defined your position in a coherent manner.

Now, given how complicated these issues can get, I don't actually think it's so terrible to not have a well-defined position. I don't insist that you have some elaborate and completely self-consistent intellectual framework for all of it. But given that you don't (or at least aren't willing to present one), what I don't have much patience for is your own intolerance for people who just don't agree with you 100%. Without such an intellectual framework to make consistent evaluations, how can you even justify saying that they're wrong and you're right, let alone essentially calling them bad people for being wrong?

I have no intention engaging with people who have anti-trans intentions from the start, like yourself.

There are people who can be swayed and ones that can't. I don't think it's productive to waste time on the latter.

 

[Lord Muck oGentry]

I'm not advocating for testing, the testing thing I said was referring to a previous post regarding dogs legs and whether they were legs or not, by a famous politician that liked tails and comparisons.

In my opinion male/female, no quibbling it's a factual matter.

In my opinion gender, go do what you want, freedom.....

what do you mean by oldspeak and newspeak?

Sorry, you've lost me.

I did not suppose you were advocating for anything. You did, however, ask about testing for woman. As you seemed to accept female, I mentioned he other two criteria.

The doggy joke hardly needs explanation: the punchline does the job.

I do not know what connection you mean between gender and freedom.

Oldspeak and Newspeak are used by Orwell in1984. Here is a link:
https://genius.com/George-orwell-nineteen-eighty-four-appendix-the-principles-of-newspeak-annotated

 

[Ziggurat]

It's because I accept that there will never be a definition that will please everybody. And I ultimately don't care about definitions. This board gets too bogged down in trivialities.

So there are definitions that are more accurate and ones that are less or inaccurate.

That's... not actually how language works. Definitions are never accurate or inaccurate. They just are. Some definitions are more useful or more suited for certain purposes than other definitions, but they are axiomatic by nature, so accuracy isn't even an applicable property.

Perhaps what you mean is that some definitions are more or less accurate descriptions of what YOUR definition is. And that can be true, but it's also a bit presumptuous.

Lastly, and most importantly, definitions are not trivialities. If you're going to use a word to communicate, the definition of the word is of utmost importance. Communication is not possible if the listener doesn't know the meaning of the words that a speaker is using. And if nothing else, this thread should certainly illustrate that we aren't all using the same definition for the word "woman". So if you want to use the word "woman" to make an argument in this thread, it behooves you to explain what you mean by that word, which means providing your definition. Your definition need not match anyone else's definition, it's OK if you want to keep using a different definition than someone (or even everyone) else. But the definition you use is still required, if we are to understand what you mean when you use the word. It's only irrelevant if you're not going to use the word at all, but you clearly are going to use it.

 

[Ziggurat]

I am a woman, therefore I belong in women's restrooms, locker rooms, spas, shelters, and prisons.

I had hoped you didn't belong in prison at all, but you know better than I.

 

[Ziggurat]

I have no intention engaging with people who have anti-trans intentions from the start, like yourself.

You don't even know what my intentions are, precisely because you have refused to engage with me. The primary intention I have tried to convey to you is that I want you to define your positions coherently. And you consistently refuse to do so.

 

[Boudicca90]

I had hoped you didn't belong in prison at all, but you know better than I.

Lol, I'm a very law-abiding person in general and have a clean record. I've had no problem passing background checks for obtaining high-level security clearances because of that.

But because of my politics and activism, I know I'm not entirely safe from incarceration. And sometimes you never know how an action will turn out when the fascists and pigs get involved.

 

[d4m10n]

"A woman is a person who feels comfortable in a female body rather than a male body."

Just as I've no way of knowing whether I'd feel more comfortable in a new pair of shoes without trying them on and walking about for a bit, I've no way of knowing whether I'd feel more comfortable in another body without actually switching bodies.

The Tale of the Body Thief was a great read (and it holds up fairly well) but I don't expect skeptics to think of mind/body dualism as anything more than a fantastic plot device.

I'd suggest modifying the definition somewhat, perhaps "A woman is a person who doesn't mind being perceived—by themselves and others—as female."

 

[theprestige]

I'd suggest modifying the definition somewhat, perhaps "A woman is a person who doesn't mind being perceived—by themselves and others—as female."

How about, "a woman is a person who very much does mind being perceived - by themselves and others - as male"?

ETA: But this business of perception is an insufficient criteria. There are any number of human conditions where the person having the condition minds very much how they are perceived, but nobody else is willing to confer any semblance of reality on that perception. What privileges gender dysphoria over body integrity identity disorder, in terms of how others should perceive a person?

 

[d4m10n]

What privileges gender dysphoria over body integrity identity disorder, in terms of how others should perceive a person?

A person with BIID would prefer to perceive themselves as free from an offending, say, limb and would prefer that others perceive them thus as well.

But this business of perception is an insufficient criteria.

Agreed, but I'm tryna improve on literal body-swapping here.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I also think this is a good definition. As a woman, I feel far more comfortable in a female body than I did a male one.

What part of your body is female? What female experience of your body have you had?

The experience of a female body is a lot more than boobs. Just as I assume that the experience of a male body is a lot more than having a furry face.