Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[theprestige]

They just give an operational definition. A woman is someone who answers the question "Are you a woman?" with "Yes."

That's not an operational definition. It's a circular definition. Once again we see that self-ID is meaningless and irrelevant.

 

[shuttlt]

My definition would be something like:

1. an adult human female
2. an adult human who identifies as a woman1

(and then a bunch of other definitions of woman that no one's really interested in)

And then what happens is equivocation is used to flip laws, norms and so on that mean "adult human female" to mean "adult human who identifies as a woman". The question of the definition is silly. Nobody who is remotely awake is actually confused about it. The question is, do we, or do we not, want to deconstruct the concept of "gender" such that it becomes a content free label? Do we think society would be better if the word "man" carried no more assumption of having a penis the "woman"?

 

[mumblethrax]

A woman2 is an adult human who identifies as an adult human female?

Yes, silly of me.

1. an adult human female
2. someone who identifies as a woman1

Fun. Next question, how can you identify as something you're not?

By having a sense of yourself as that thing.

For example, someone might have been raised in a working class family, become rich, but still identify himself as working class.

 

[mumblethrax]

That's not an operational definition. It's a circular definition. Once again we see that self-ID is meaningless and irrelevant.

It is an operational definition. It's not a circular definition.

 

[shuttlt]

For example, someone might have been raised in a working class family, become rich, but still identify himself as working class.

Where this would encounter some similar issues would be if there had been a meaning of "working class" that was defined objectively, and real world social policy was build around that objective definition.... and then activists introduced a new definition that suited their activism. If those activists tried to equivocate from the old meaning to their new meaning in order to change real world policy, then we would have something similar.

"man" and "woman" are far older than "working class" though and go far deeper into the fabric of society. Using these Orwellian language games to try to re-engineer society is profoundly dishonest.

 

[Olmstead]

By having a sense of yourself as that thing.

For example, someone might have been raised in a working class family, become rich, but still identify himself as working class.

That sense of yourself isn't some nebulous concept, but an actual thing that can be defined.

In your example, that person has a very clear idea of why they identify as working class. It's because they were working class at some point in their life and because they still possess certain characteristic that they find significant. There's a clear definition of a working class person in their head, and they can separate people into working class and non-working class based on that definition.

What is that definition in the case of woman2?

 

[mumblethrax]

That sense of yourself isn't some nebulous concept, but an actual thing that can be defined.

In your example, that person has a very clear idea of why they identify as working class. It's because they were working class at some point in their life and because they still possess certain characteristic that they find significant. There's a clear definition of a working class person in their head, and they can separate people into working class and non-working class based on that definition.

What is that definition in the case of woman2?

People who think of themselves as women2 have a sense of who women are socially, inferred from their interactions with women and how they express themselves over the course of their lives. They feel they are closer to this than anything else.

 

[d4m10n]

Provide a real, non-circular definition.

Hey now don't be so provocative.

People who think of themselves as women2 have a sense of who women are socially, inferred from their interactions with women and how they express themselves over the course of their lives.

Is this substantively the same as saying they'd rather be subjected to the norms of femininity?

 

[shuttlt]

People who think of themselves as women2 have a sense of who women are socially, inferred from their interactions with women and how they express themselves over the course of their lives. They feel they are closer to this than anything else.

Except having demanded everybody acknowledge the new definition of women2, trans-activists then demand that that women2 be treated as being identical to women1, and all societal norms and laws that applied to women1 should apply to women2.

 

[Olmstead]

People who think of themselves as women2 have a sense of who women are socially, inferred from their interactions with women and how they express themselves over the course of their lives. They feel they are closer to this than anything else.

That's much better, although it needs some corrections:

A woman2 is someone who has a sense of who most adult females are socially, inferred from their interactions with adult females and how most of them express themselves over the course of their lives, and who feels that they are closer to this than anything else.

It works as a definition. It also reduces womanhood to a stereotype, and could be considered sexist. It's also difficult to see why it's singificant with regards to any policies, especially since it would disqualify many women1.

 

[Ziggurat]

It isn't circular, if you understand what an operational definition is.

Yes, it's not circular, but it's also not real, in the sense that it cannot actually be used.

My definition would be something like:

1. an adult human female
2. an adult human who identifies as a woman1

I think that's a bad definition, but it is a definition at least.

More to the point, since I'm sure my opinion doesn't matter much to you, you won't get the trans activists to accept or adopt it. It already concedes too much, as far as they are concerned. Despite its relative simplicity, they can't come out and say anything like that.

 

[theprestige]

It is an operational definition. It's not a circular definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_definition

I don't see any operation being performed in your definition. All it says is "a woman is whatever calls itself a woman". Which is indeed circular.

An operational definition would be: A woman is an adult human female.

Your definition 2 is just: A woman is anyone who claims to be an adult human female. Which is obviously silly.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Yes, silly of me.

1. an adult human female
2. someone who identifies as a woman1

What if the adult human female in definition 1 identifies as a man?

 

[mumblethrax]

Is this substantively the same as saying they'd rather be subjected to the norms of femininity?

Not really, or at least not exclusively. Olmstead has it more or less right.

That's much better, although it needs some corrections:

A woman2 is someone who has a sense of who most adult females are socially, inferred from their interactions with adult females and how most of them express themselves over the course of their lives, and who feels that they are closer to this than anything else.

We should probably just remove adult altogether. People develop ideas about who girls are, too.

It works as a definition. It also reduces womanhood to a stereotype, and could be considered sexist.

Initially, yeah, it's more or less a stererotype, but in the social psychology sense, and not necessary inaccurate. But it needn't remain that way. If someone transitions, they will start having at least some of the experiences that women do (learning how others treat women, especially if they "pass"). They'll also start learning all the unspoken rules. I've talked to trans men who were shocked to find out how closed off emotionally men can be with each other, or that we're not supposed to talk to each other in public bathrooms, etc.

It's also difficult to see why it's singificant with regards to any policies, especially since it would disqualify many women1.

Of course there's also women3, which is just an umbrella for both, so it's not really disqualifying anyone. This could probably be refined, but I do need to do some work today.

The social policies that follow, at least in the US, are basically non-discrimination policy, which is grounded in the fact that they're a targeted minority. Interestingly, some of those protections are already in place, due to the existence of sex as a protected class. There will presumably be some exceptions, just as there are for all other the others.

 

[d4m10n]

A woman2 is someone who has a sense of who most adult females are socially, inferred from their interactions with adult females and how most of them express themselves over the course of their lives, and who feels that they are closer to this than anything else.

Is this not just femininity^WP, i.e. the set of gendered norms and gender expressions generally expected of females by some given society?

 

[shuttlt]

Is this not just femininity^WP, i.e. the set of gendered norms and gender expressions generally expected of females by some given society?

That doesn't work. If you call it "femininity", then you can't equivocate on the meaning of the word woman to socially re-engineer society.

 

[mumblethrax]

Yes, it's not circular, but it's also not real, in the sense that it cannot actually be used.

Sure it can. Ask someone if they're a woman (girl, man, boy, non-binary, whatever). If they say yes, you tick the box that says woman (girl, man, boy...).

More to the point, since I'm sure my opinion doesn't matter much to you, you won't get the trans activists to accept or adopt it. It already concedes too much, as far as they are concerned. Despite its relative simplicity, they can't come out and say anything like that.

Who gives a ****** There's this persistent undertone in this conversation where everyone thinks I'm committed to capitulating to whatever the most obnoxious activists want. I'm not.

The main thing I want to communicate is that I think there's something to the idea of gender identity (and even something to the idea of innate gender identity), that it really doesn't cost you much to accommodate trans people in most situations if you don't work yourself into a froth about it, and that this idea so often on display in this thead that "I'm right, therefore I get to be as toxic as I want about this" is repulsive.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Sure it can. Ask someone if they're a woman (girl, man, boy, non-binary, whatever). If they say yes, you tick the box that says woman (girl, man, boy...).

Sure, but this violates the first of your two definitions:

woman: 1. an adult human female

You need to change that to:

woman: 1. an adult human female who identifies as a woman

However, this is redundant because of your second definition.

So you're stuck with the word "woman" meaning nothing other than something who says they're a woman.

 

[mumblethrax]

I don't see any operation being performed in your definition.

The operation is to ask someone if they are a woman.

An operational definition would be: A woman is an adult human female.

No, that's not operationalized.

Your definition 2 is just: A woman is anyone who claims to be an adult human female. Which is obviously silly.

It should probably say something about being an adult, which is what I was going for when I biffed it.
But it's not particularly silly. That's what gender identity is. It's also what gender dysphoria stems from--incongruence between gender identity and sex at birth. Without gender identity, gender dysphoria has no meaning.

 

[mumblethrax]

Sure, but this violates the first of your two definitions:

You understand these are two different definitions, right? The one that I think trans activists might accept, and the one I myself would offer.