In the social sense, a woman is anyone who has been subjected to the norms and expectations of femininity, whether by birth or by choice.
Wow... A definition that actually works. Good for you. Social expression is really the only way that one can define a woman. All other definitions fail.
Well that escalated quickly.
GaughEyad, what's wrong with "adult human female" as a definition of "woman"?
Also, if you don't understand why sex segregation in sports, prisons, women's shelters, and a few other places is a good idea, then you're not really ready to participate in this conversation in its current form. But don't worry! Several people will be along shortly to explain it to you. And then, regarding your antagonism, we shall see what's what.
Well, it's just vague enough. I can get behind it, as long as you agree that trans women fall into that category. They too have reached adult human female status. If not, then your definition fails.
Considering that you can't tell me why keeping sex segregation around is a good idea, I guess I'll just have to infer that you don't have one and you're responding from an emotional place. Again, emotions often lie to us. Give me a real reason with real reasoning behind it and actual demonstrable and verifiable facts supporting it or you might as well be quoting bible verses to me.
As for me being antagonistic? I get that way with people who don't believe in treating others with respect and instead try to pigeonhole them in ways that are completely inappropriate. In regards to what's what? Considering there's still no consistent definition of what a woman is, I highly doubt many here would even know what that what was even supposed to be.
A woman is a female human being that has attained sexual maturity.
Simple. Too simple. Based on the law alone no one is going to agree with this statement. You're basically saying that 8, 9, 10 year olds should be considered women. Might want to back away from that one there.
Transmen are women, yes. Glad we cleared that up.
They should have access to female intimate spaces and they should be eligible to compete in women's sporting events so long as they satisfy all eligibility criteria including not taking banned performance-enhancing drugs.
If all you have is "some people don't agree" then you're struggling.
Except a lot of people would not agree that trans men are women, least of all the trans men themselves. A lot of the people who don't agree happen to be in the government and are writing laws specifically saying that trans men are and at the same time aren't women in an attempt to lock them out of society into some sort of limbo. It's a gigantic mess. Either way, most women, from what I've seen, would completely disagree with you and tell you that you're crazy.
Too bad it's actually the only viable definition that I've seen thus far.
Some women with particular medical conditions don't reach sexual maturity. They are still women. Some ten year old girls have started their periods. They're not women yet. I will go with the age of legal majority in the relevant jurisdiction. Which means I was a woman at 16, which is a bit of a thought actually, but true.
I've stated as much myself.
Perhaps, but I think it's worthwhile to defend this philosophical position for the sake of the dialectic. No one else is going to have a go at it, unless perhaps Boudicca90 returns to the thread. As you may recall, I've already posted the definitive refutation of this position from Kathleen Stock.
Considering that it's the only viable definition that I've seen I have no idea how you would refute it. Any refutation would require, once again, large swaths of women to be excluded from that same said definition.
Or is there another definition that you've been hiding from me?
Better get your tin hat, because it's indefensible.
I've yet to see one anywhere near as defensible. Ignoring facts in favor of sexism doesn't work.
How many times does it have to be said.
This thread is not about transmen
There are certainly issues involving transmen having access to segregated spaces and playing sports, but they are insignificant compared with transwomen.
I'm sorry, but it is. By virtue of attempting to dispute that trans women are women you must also dispute than trans men are men. Therefore, they are women. Except most people would refuse to accept them as women unless they presented socially as women, which they don't want to do. So they're women who don't want to be women who are being excluded as being women by other women. Does that make any sense to you? Also, notice the number of times the word WOMAN appeared in that sentence? Yeah, trans men are just as significant to this discussion as trans women are.
You cannot separate trans women from trans men and pretend that one is different from the other. That's dishonest. Just where are you people getting these bizarre ideas from?
As you may recall, I've already posted the definitive refutation of this position from Kathleen Stock.
And as I've stated the only viable refutation would exclude large swaths of women, which I'm sure would not be your intent, right? So, which is it? Are women women, or aren't they? You can't say some women are women and other aren't, even leaving aside the argument of trans women. There is simply no other definition that works.
Yep. With the caveat that they can't play in female sports while taking testosterone, nor any other steroid.
Why? Professional sports are rampant with cheating and drugs as it is. This seems like a distinction without a purpose.
I don't think that is a strong enough caveat, given the possibility of lasting physiological changes from years of T.
See my previous response. When you strip out all of the cheating and drugs from sports then you can make this judgment. Until then, you're just splitting hairs.
Trending on Twitter (over 17K tweets) because of Friday's vote in Holyrood.
https://twitter.com/search?q=#NoToSelfID&src=trend_click&vertical=trends
How many re-tweets and up votes do people posting cat videos get? Yeah, social media isn't the barometer you think it is. Especially when it's being used to push sexism.
This is not remotely the gotcha you imagine it to be.
I wasn't attempting a gotcha? I've already stated that numerous times. I'm trying to figure out why people are letting their sexism cloud their judgement over a very simple, cut and dry issue. There is no viable definition for a woman outside of the one posted in this thread which was then claimed to be definitively refuted (??? HOW ???).
No one else has posted a definition that makes even a modicum of sense. Very few people are willing to accept that there can be no definition of a woman outside of social norms. Instead they grasp at straws and bandy around words like tradition. Women are "special" is a text book example of "special" pleading and yet, that's all I seem to be getting here.
If I wanted a gotcha I wouldn't be responding. I would have thrown some red meat and ran. Instead I'm actually trying to interact with people in an attempt to understand where all this sexism is coming from.
If someone would like to point me to this refutation by a one Kathleen Stock, I would be more than willing to read it. I'm skeptical that it will turn out to be little more than the usual "women are special, because" arguments that I've seen here though. There really doesn't seem to be much of anything else.
I did a bit of research on her in the interim. Seems rather sexist. Things are already not looking good.
