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)?
"It's impossible to protect in law that which you can't define."
Indeed. In fact, it's impossible to even talk about that which you can't - or won't - define. At least meaningfully, though that doesn't seem to stop many people.
But why I often quote Voltaire: "if you wish to converse with me, define your terms".
And that's no more evident than with the definitions for "sex" and "gender", many people apparently using the latter in place of the former because of "prudishness". See for example Twitterer "la scapigliata":
Eliza asked "what if we can't define the word "children"? And, I would add the terms "Disabled People" (or "People with Disabilities") or "Black and Brown People" or "Homeless People"? You CAN'T protect or ensure the civil rights in law of categories of people you can't define. More and more adult human females are being reduced to/ referred to via sexual organs, processes, and fluids, and uttering the word "woman" is becoming taboo ...unless mindlessly chanted in the mantra, "Trans women ARE women," over and over and over again. Then the word "woman" IS acceptable.
Eventually, it may come to pass that the Dems and others captured by gender identity ideology MAY assert a SINGLE definition for the word "woman": whatever a female-identifying male says it means.
Quite agree on that "taboo" - ICYMI, something that Helen Joyce had elaborated on in some detail:
"I’m writing a book about gender-identity ideology (if I scribble fast, it should be out in the middle of next year). And by chance, last week I was wrestling with the bit where I explain that across swathes of academia, and on the political Left, it’s become an article of faith that the word “woman” is fiendishly tricky to define. Indeed, I’d go further: In such circles the word is rapidly becoming taboo."
However, I'm not sure that all of the people championing - including Joyce, and even if with a great deal of justification - that definition for "woman" - i.e., "adult human female" - really realize that that "sexual organs, processes, and fluids" is more or less exactly what is encompassed by the category "female" - and likewise the category "male". That that is more or less exactly what "male" and "female" denote:
"female: 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."
A definition which Joyce in her Quillette article more or less endorsed, even if she balked at the final hurdle. As Upton Sinclair put it, “it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” Or his prior committments to various ideological articles of faith - the "immutability" of sex in particular.
In any case, the problem seems to be that too many - not just transwomen - are trying to turn "male" and "female" into some sort of "immutable" identity based on some "mythic essence". Probably why they tend to be nonplussed at best if not seriously offended when people draw attention to what the words really mean and their logical consequences.
For instance, see my comments on Kathleen Stock's Substack, and her response to me:
While she is to be commended for more or less acknowledging the culpability of feminism in the "fiasco" of transgenderism, she too seems rather desperate to avoid facing those consequences. Not at all a good look, particularly in someone trying to lay claim to some intellectual honesty.
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".
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.
I don't know that we're that far off from "having a sexual relationship with an adult". Child marriage is legal in 46 states in the US, some with no lower age limit (like California)and some with loopholes to parental consent (like the girl being pregnant). And this is not because there are antiquated laws that lawmakers forgot were on the books, challenges have been brought continually over the years and lawmakers keep deciding to leave things as they are. I think what we're witnessing is massive indifference toward women and children and/or a vested interest in controlling them.
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.
"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' ...."
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."
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)."
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".
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.
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)?
Cynthia,
"It's impossible to protect in law that which you can't define."
Indeed. In fact, it's impossible to even talk about that which you can't - or won't - define. At least meaningfully, though that doesn't seem to stop many people.
But why I often quote Voltaire: "if you wish to converse with me, define your terms".
And that's no more evident than with the definitions for "sex" and "gender", many people apparently using the latter in place of the former because of "prudishness". See for example Twitterer "la scapigliata":
https://twitter.com/lascapigliata8/status/957968082978340864
Tends to muddy waters that are already badly muddied for other even less credible "reasons".
Eliza asked "what if we can't define the word "children"? And, I would add the terms "Disabled People" (or "People with Disabilities") or "Black and Brown People" or "Homeless People"? You CAN'T protect or ensure the civil rights in law of categories of people you can't define. More and more adult human females are being reduced to/ referred to via sexual organs, processes, and fluids, and uttering the word "woman" is becoming taboo ...unless mindlessly chanted in the mantra, "Trans women ARE women," over and over and over again. Then the word "woman" IS acceptable.
Eventually, it may come to pass that the Dems and others captured by gender identity ideology MAY assert a SINGLE definition for the word "woman": whatever a female-identifying male says it means.
Quite agree on that "taboo" - ICYMI, something that Helen Joyce had elaborated on in some detail:
"I’m writing a book about gender-identity ideology (if I scribble fast, it should be out in the middle of next year). And by chance, last week I was wrestling with the bit where I explain that across swathes of academia, and on the political Left, it’s become an article of faith that the word “woman” is fiendishly tricky to define. Indeed, I’d go further: In such circles the word is rapidly becoming taboo."
https://quillette.com/2020/06/20/she-who-must-not-be-named/
However, I'm not sure that all of the people championing - including Joyce, and even if with a great deal of justification - that definition for "woman" - i.e., "adult human female" - really realize that that "sexual organs, processes, and fluids" is more or less exactly what is encompassed by the category "female" - and likewise the category "male". That that is more or less exactly what "male" and "female" denote:
"female: 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
A definition which Joyce in her Quillette article more or less endorsed, even if she balked at the final hurdle. As Upton Sinclair put it, “it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” Or his prior committments to various ideological articles of faith - the "immutability" of sex in particular.
In any case, the problem seems to be that too many - not just transwomen - are trying to turn "male" and "female" into some sort of "immutable" identity based on some "mythic essence". Probably why they tend to be nonplussed at best if not seriously offended when people draw attention to what the words really mean and their logical consequences.
For instance, see my comments on Kathleen Stock's Substack, and her response to me:
https://kathleenstock.substack.com/p/entering-the-parallel-universe-of/comment/5728748?s=r
While she is to be commended for more or less acknowledging the culpability of feminism in the "fiasco" of transgenderism, she too seems rather desperate to avoid facing those consequences. Not at all a good look, particularly in someone trying to lay claim to some intellectual honesty.
YES!
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".
Ahhh, this is a great answer. Can I post it, with credit to you and a link to your comment?
By which I mean, can I add it at the bottom of this post
Sure thing!
Without a doubt, children are next.
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.
I don't know that we're that far off from "having a sexual relationship with an adult". Child marriage is legal in 46 states in the US, some with no lower age limit (like California)and some with loopholes to parental consent (like the girl being pregnant). And this is not because there are antiquated laws that lawmakers forgot were on the books, challenges have been brought continually over the years and lawmakers keep deciding to leave things as they are. I think what we're witnessing is massive indifference toward women and children and/or a vested interest in controlling them.
When the @JudiciaryDems twitter posted "Trans rights are human rights" my blood ran cold.
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.
Heart-stopping.
A great point. They are messing with our language so much it is now insane.
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".
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.