18 Comments

Those posing the question "What is a woman?" to gender identity-captured Dem politicians and Dem government officials would do well to add a preamble based on Eliza's piece above: "It's impossible to protect in law that which you can't define. The Taliban knows what girls and women are when it prevents them from getting an education. Pimps and johns know what girls and women are when promoting/seeking sex for money. Why is it so hard for Dems to clearly define the word "woman"? What IS a woman, Senator (or Governer or Supreme Court Judge, etc)?

Expand full comment

Being a part of the female sex class is often left out of these discussions. People often ask "who does it harm?" when we obfuscate sex. And I would say females--the class of people who are oppressed on the basis of our sex. How can we talk about our oppression if the basis of it has no clear outline? That's why I think it's a little convenient that all of this became so "unclear" following Me Too.

Patriarchy has always been very adaptable and has countered every step forward women have taken. I don't know, maybe we should start answering the question "what is a woman?" with: "a member of the female sex class, the class who continually have to reassert our personhood, the class of people who are not allowed to center ourselves and who are constantly expected to put our needs to the side for others." And maybe "the class of people who are tired of this BS".

Expand full comment

Without a doubt, children are next.

Expand full comment

That is the end goal. Giving children the right to go on cross sex hormones, mutilate their bodies... 20 years from now. Decide to have a sexual relationship with an adult. Just you wait.

Expand full comment

When the @JudiciaryDems twitter posted "Trans rights are human rights" my blood ran cold.

Expand full comment

I found her response chilling. This was a SC nominee clearly lying in allegiance to an ideology that seeks to destroy the rights of women and girls, and push the evidence-free medicalization experiment on children in the name of “authenticity.” There is no denying that. But this answer — this lie — was CELEBRATED. Five years ago she wouldn’t have struggled to answer that question. I seem to recall that not too long ago were we decrying the Republican SC nominee for lying and not believing the women? How quickly we have fallen.

As difficult as it will be for me, because I will be turning my back on issues I think are truly important, I cannot vote for a party that supports this dangerous madness. There seems to be little else we can do.

Expand full comment

Heart-stopping.

Expand full comment

A great point. They are messing with our language so much it is now insane.

Expand full comment

Eliza,

"Because, of course, it doesn't take a biology degree to define the word 'woman.' ...."

Kind of depends on where you're coming from, on which dictionary you happen to subscribe to. For instance, standard etymology sources argue that the "essence" of both "woman" and "female" was:

"literally 'she who suckles,' from PIE root *dhe(i)- 'to suck' ...."

https://www.etymonline.com/word/female#etymonline_v_5841

Word definitions aren't cast in concrete or chiseled in stone; the first dictionary wasn't brought down from Mt. Sinai by Moses on tablets A through Z. We change our definitions, most credibly, to reflect new knowledge and perspectives.

And now, with the discovery of gametes in the late 1800s, "woman" means "adult human female" while "female" means:

"Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes."

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/female

Not exactly common knowledge, although it should be. So it's maybe understandable why so many are somewhat at a loss when challenged for a definition.

But that situation isn't much helped when ostensibly credible dictionaries like Merriam-Webster will endorse and promote definitions of "man" and "woman" as genders, as individuals who merely look typical of particular sexes while not actually being members of the expected sex categories:

"Among those who study gender and sexuality, a clear delineation between sex and gender is typically prescribed, with sex as the preferred term for biological forms, and gender limited to its meanings involving behavioral, cultural, and psychological traits. In this dichotomy, the terms male and female relate only to biological forms (sex), while the terms masculine/masculinity, feminine/femininity, woman/girl, and man/boy relate only to psychological and sociocultural traits (gender)."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender#usage-1

So which "psychological and sociocultural traits" are "essential" to qualify anyone as a member of the "male gender" [man] or the "female gender" [woman]? Even if those combinations of words are generally deprecated in favour of "masculine gender" and "feminine gender". Likewise even using "man" and "woman" as genders, MW's claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

But a real dog's breakfast of definitions; lots of obfuscation and muddying of the waters going on in the "debate", often for less than ethically or logically tenable or coherent "reasons".

Expand full comment

She's right, though, although it is frustrating. A committee hearing on the appointment of a SCOTUS member is not the appropriate place for any nominee to wade into what has become, unfortunately, a hotbed of political correctness and cancel culture because of the Trans Rights Activists lobby. She has to walk a fine line (not on the definition of a woman) of fairness and not tipping her biases ahead of court cases that she would have to pass judgment on, which there may be many going forward. So I do understand her point and I am not expecting her or other nominees that the Dems put forward to be a unicorn for all political issues.

Expand full comment