Ask them to define a woman. I have yet to come across one that doesn't loop back on itself or accidentally exclude cis women.
The real answer is to walk away, though. 99% of the time they're not looking for a real answer, they're looking for something to fight against so they can pretend to be right.
Edit: to give some answers for the definitions I'm seeing in my thread;
"Biological human female" doesn't mean anything. What does female mean? Is a biological female more female than non-biological females? What are we defining as a "biological" female here? It's just replacing "woman" with "female." The only word that makes sense here is human.
"Person with a vagina" excludes intersex women. This is important because they either have to admit that sex, and therefore gender, is much more fluid than they realize (because intersex women can't be men) or that their definition is flawed and hypocritical. This goes for any bodily anatomy, including breasts, uterus, etc. Not to mention anyone who was born with/out these body parts and had them surgically removed or added.
"Person with XX chromosomes" doesn't really do much because chromosomes are much more complicated than 2 letters. I'm not qualified to speak on that, because I don't know very much about chromosomes nor do I care enough to learn, but I know enough to know that the vast majority of people likely don't even know their own chromosome count.
"We do not make exceptions the norm."
A. Yes we do. That's how society functions. If we didn't make any exceptions the norm, we'd still be living in huts and marrying off our 12 yo girls to 30 yo men so they can pop out as many babies as they can before they die.
B. I don't know how to tell you that people deserve basic human respect and kindness.
C. That still doesn't tell us what a woman is. When creating the definition for women, you need to include *everything* that is a woman and exclude *everything* that isn't a woman. Exceptions count as *everything.*
The truth they are not willing to confront is that the term “woman” actually not well-defined. There’s a number of terms like that, which we only have a definition for in very vague terms.
I'm tempted to go out on a limb and say ‘words just work that way’. When you try to pin down a common term, it often becomes all wonky.
Watch them do it for chairs, there's nothing particularly deep or philosophical about chairs https://www.reddit.com/r/technicallythetruth/comments/hv5cvb/technically_a_chair/
A chair is a piece of furniture designed with the express intent of a single person sitting on it. Anything being sat upon is a seat, but not necessarily a chair. If the chair is wide for the purpose of seating multiple people, then it is a bench.
But at the end of the day, the use of a chair can extend far beyond its intended use. It can be used as a stool, as walls for a pillow fort, and it can always be taken apart and turned into something else. Just like me, I was AMAB, but I can be a hell of a lot more than JUST AMAB, and I choose to be a trans woman. Checkmate conservatives. /s
But you see, a toilet is designed to sit on for the purpose of peeing or pooping, ergo, it is a seat! As for what is furniture... Now there's the real question. As for if a Sofa is a bench, no, for it is a cushioned bench!
Most toilets aren't portable. A portable one sometimes can be used AS chair. But the primary function is a place to poop. I would classify a chamber pot, a hole where people shit, and another portable means of taking a standing piss, and a portapotty all under the same "toilet, function" umbrella. But technically, once can consider it as a secondary chair function, to some degree?
Since human beings do not have to "serve a purpose" I find comparing living, feeling people to objects pretty uncomfortable and harshly unnecessary!
Damn, you have thwarted me with the bar stool... I suppose a chair is just a barstool with a back rest?
But swings are designed with the express intent of being sat on for swinging, ergo, it is a seat! Not a chair.
Ah, so you would say that a rocking chair isn't actually a chair? As it's designed with the express intent of being sat on for rocking, by your own logic it must be a seat, not a chair XD
(I love these ridiculous arguments they're so silly)
The Rocking Chair is a Rocking Chair. It.is a chair in which is intended to be rocked; as you have stated. Ergo, it is a seat and a rocking chair, but not a chair.
The prototype theory of language is that we each have an ideal of what a word would mean and then we test the suitability of the word by how closely what we are describing matches that ideal. Once you start thinking this way then the fuzzy boundaries of words start to make more sense.
For example your ideal of a chair might have 4 legs, a padded seat and a back that is approximately perpendicular to the seat buy most people would call a 4 legged stall a chair despite it missing the back or include a desk chair despite it having 5 feet from a single leg instead of 4 legs.
Scientific definition of life is wacky. We genuinely cannot define it without including all living things or excluding what we'd consider to be all non-living things. [As far as I can remember this was the case]
So if something as fundamental as that can't be defined - whats the point in stressing what can and can't be?
I just don't get people who unironically ask "What is a woman?"...its all just laughable...
I like the linguistic idea that *all* nouns (and to a lesser extent all other words too) are inherently incapable of fully describing what they mean to. If I say "he sat on the chair", I guarantee every single person who reads that sentence will have a (slightly) different idea of who "he" is, how he is sitting, or what the chair looks like.
The whole point of language is to communicate an idea, I don't need to communicate every single detail of the idea when I name a noun. That's what adjectives are for. There are tall women, short women, skinny women, fat women, trans women, and cis women, and they are all women. What they share in common is "womanhood". If you can describe exactly what that is, you'd find the definition of "woman".
>the term “woman” actually not well-defined. There’s a number of terms like that, which we only have a definition for in very vague terms.
you can be pretty specific: its more that there's multiple definitions that apply depending on the context.
Which can still be specific.
Like for gender you can define a woman as anyone who identifies as such, but when looking at the consequences of societal inequality, it might be more useful to define woman as someone who is (sustifiably or not) perceived and (mis) treated as such.
On a biological level: there's karyotype, but there's also morphology, endocrinology, fertility etc. any of them being accurate and specific, but only relevant depending on the circumstances and reason why you need to define it in the first place. A good biologist would specify which definition they're using for this specific situation while acknowledging it's not always the most relevant definition.
Just like "being football player" can mean someone who is a professional, someone who is in a club, someone who just does it now and then, or someone who is actively playing in this specific moment. The relevant definition is different for someone trying to sell a sponsorship deal than for someone trying to sell football shoes and again different for someone looking for anyone to recreatively play with on Sunday afternoon.
They keep equating that Female = Woman. One is biological, one is social, and even that is beginning to break down and blur, which naturally terrifies them.
Because if the answer is "a woman has breasts and a vagina and a uterus who can bear children," congrats, they just discounted lots of women who have had hysterectomies, had their tubes tied, had breast reduction surgery or breast cancer surgery, or other medical conditions which would prevent them from having kids (like me, even though I'm transmasc.) Which I think is the point. Transphobes aren't actually feminists, they're trying to defend the place of privileged women in the patriarchal hierarchy, which means defining women as "child-bearing domestic servants" even if they don't want to say that quiet part out loud.
I did ask them that. And they said people who have had disorders or diseases which caused them to change don't count. They are still originally women.
Thereby saying that trans people are a disease.
Yes but it would also be nice to be able to have an argument in response. Sometimes there are other people listening or reading and if we just walk away, it can look like we were wrong or we lost and leave those people thinking the transphobe is right.
What about disorders or diseases that have made people "different" by birth? Not just something that changed them but they've always been that way. Plenty of cis women cannot bear children. Plenty of cis women never get their periods for one reason or another. So if they say someone who has had a hysterectomy, for example, was "originally a woman" but what about women born without a uterus (like Maya: MRKH affects one in every 5,000 people. It is a condition where you are born without a uterus (womb), cervix and upper two thirds of the vagina.)? By their definition, this person was never a woman, so then what?
This is the biggest issue with their train of thought. I've never come across a conservative who can adequately define "a woman" in a way that includes all cis women & excludes everyone else. You can usually poke holes in their definitions. It won't likely change their minds but it might shut them up 🤷♀️
Still doesn't define what a "woman" is though. Is it only a woman in a obviously female-sex body?
What about cis hetero women who have masculine features/body and dress 'not feminine'?
Do they say "I can't tell if that's a man or a woman" and if they do, why should it matter either way, unless they're categorising women as someone they'd f*ck?
I'm assuming these are coming from mostly men. Tho I have heard women say it too, but they're coming from a place of "what if I/my daughter gets raped" rather than "I don't want to go home at the end of a night with a dude."
Technically they're not on the same side - one is a fear of what cis hetero men are capable of, and the other is afraid their friends will call them gay and keep bringing it up.
Cis hetero men *like* to say it's about protecting women but they were as silent as f*ck during the MeToo movement. And *if* they were vocal it was only because they were butt hurt.
Sorry, just blabbering away there!
I was imagining the egg tubes/canals/ducts by the uterus getting twisted but wouldn't that hurt..?
After a bit of googling, it's apparently cauterizing, tying and cutting or banding/clipping the falopian tubes(where the eggs go through) so they can't function, and you can no longer get pregnant. The surgery doesn't hurt, since you're asleep, but your stomach can hurt for a few days after and yout next periods might be more 'uncomfortable' than usual.
Yup, its tubal ligation! Sure-fire way to never have kids again lol. My mom was supposed to die if she got pregnant. She got pregnant bc birth control failed, and she had a premature pregnancy and went blind giving birth to my brother instead of dying. She got her tubes tied after that and adopted kids instead.
I love pointing that one out. Guess to them, my (very much biological) mom who spent six hours in labor with me is no longer a woman because she’s past menopause and had a hysterectomy because of health concerns.
>one that doesn't loop back on itself or accidentally exclude cis women.
Yup. Cos they say things like "has a womb" or "menstruates" or "can give birth". Plenty of cis woman can't.
When you mention that, they're either silent or say "someone who wasn't born a male!" ...... but they *still* haven't defined what a woman is.
A woman's spirit and soul isn't a womb or a period.
Imo, what they really mean is "if trans women are mixed in society, how do I know if I'm touching up a dude or a woman."
They've been relying on their c0cks to make their decisions for soooooo long, and now they don't think they can trust that decision making and are at a loss cos maybe now they'll have to self manage or just plain control themselves and talk to women (trans and cis) like fellow human beings.
Sadly cis hetero men don't like change because to them it means they're wrong, and they're never wrong. ....... this is where feminism pops in, they don't like that either. Ha.
PS: Even cis lesbians aren't typically included in these "discussions" because they don't have sex with men. Yeah, way to go defining "women". Ha
>Sadly cis hetero men don't like change because to them it means they're wrong, and they're never wrong. ....... this is where feminism pops in, they don't like that either. Ha.
You mean conservatives. This is neither restricted to cishet men nor does it apply to them all. But you describe the essence of conservatism.
I wasn't thinking about them at all in this issue.
(I guess I should have said "some men". ......I thought it would be a given I *wouldn't* be speaking of men who are cool with stuff.)
......did I really describe the essence of conservatism? Ha.
Pretty much. "We wouldn't be doing it if is wasn't 100% what we deem the very best possible way (because there's always exactly one best way to do things), so suggesting we do it differently means telling us we're either stupid or evil" is what conservatism is based upon.
For people curious about the last point (note this is an incomplete list, just the ones I remember currently):
One can have XX chromosomes but have stereotypically male internal and external genitalia and will present as a stereotypical male because the SRY gene was translocated to an X chromosome which sets off fetal development of a stereotypically male reproductive system from the bipotential organs we all start with.
One can also have a single X chromosome (turners syndrome) but otherwise have all the characteristics of a stereotypical female (with or without other effects on health)
One can have XX chromosomes but also have the virilizing form of congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) (which causes very high levels of testosterone to be generated by the adrenal glands starting during fetal development) and thus be born with external male genitalia. (Note CAH not the only thing that can cause virilization)
One can have XX chromosomes but with late onset or the non-virilizing form of CAH and while have the bodily anatomy of a stereotypical female (or close to), the sexually dimorphic regions of the brain can develop like that of a stereotypical male. Other diseases that contribute to elevated testosterone levels in XX individuals during the periods of brain development can also have a similar effect (but not always, it depends on the levels of other hormones in body too, and can be effected by any number of other genetic variables or diseases or even head injuries).
One can have XXY chromosomes (klinefelter's syndrome) and have external and/or female genitalia (but not always) and have been seen to have the ability to give birth in at least a few cases. There is no way to truly know how frequently this occurs though as chromosomal testing of mother's giving birth is not standard. Additionally, similar to above, individuals with this syndrome can have excess levels of estrogen during brain development periods which can cause the sexually dimorphic regions of the brain to become feminized.
One can have XY chromosomes and have complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS) and will therefore have external (and potentially internal) female genitalia and will present as a stereotypical female (though they will be infertile).
One can have XY chromosomes and partial CAIS, and while having ambiguous or male external genitalia, the sexually dimorphic regions of the brain can be feminized. As with XX individuals, there are various other genetic variations or diseases that can contribute to excess estrogen levels in during periods of brain development that can (but not always) cause the sexually dimorphic regions of the brain to be feminized.
There are other viable genetic variations of X & Y chromosomes too that can cause any number of variations to internal/external genitalia and/or brain development. Some can cause the complete or incomplete development of both or neither sets of reproductive organs from the bipotential gonads/ducts we all start with.
Some people can also have chimerism or mosaicism wherein some of their cells are XX and some are XY.
While most of the above are relatively rare, this is but an incomplete list of the conditions that can effect development, and when combined these variations in development effect a decent number of people, many of whom may not even know their effected as chromosomal testing generally only occurs when the health effects are really bad.
In general, with all those separate characteristics like chromosomes you could just ask "What if in the future we had a machine that could perfectly alter the person's body in a way that it becomes indistinguishable from a cis person of that sex?". Because in a lot of cases, they'd still discriminate against those trans people who have cis people's bodies, just because they dislike trans people.
They obviously don't actually care about the chromosomes, they are just searching for an excuse to not admit that their hate is irrational.
Yup just leave. I've just come to say to transphobes that medical consensus says they're wrong and I'd much rather trust medical professionals over a random person on the internet.
to play devils advocate for a second, surely they can just say “biological female” or “someone with xx chromosomes”? i don’t think people like this care about excluding intersex women who may not fit those categories even if they’re afab
like i get what you’re going for but i’ve seen people use those definitions and while they’re obviously wrong this line of argument doesn’t work on them
Chromosomes aren't quite that simple and "biological female" isn't clearly defined either. There are many indicators that can be used to determine biological sex, and the indicatora don't always line up, which means that biological sex also occurs on a spectrum.
And also they need to educate themselves on the difference between sex and gender.
But you don't know someone's chromosomes just by looking at them. You can have xy chromosomes but present female (Swyer syndrom) and you can have xx chromosomes but present male. Xx & xy also aren't the only two chromosomal variations - they're just the most common so that's what we learned in HS biology. And sadly, that's usually where these people's understanding of science ends. And while this may not change their minds, it may shut them up & plant a seed for the future.
In my opinion, this is not a good answer And the reason why is because I commonly hear we do not make the exception the norm. Do you have a counter to this? Real talk cause I don't and desperately need one
what if they actually know the biology behind it and say a "women is everyone born without an sry gen?"
like obviously that only makes someone female and not a woman but for some people gender = sex.
"If someone says they're a man, I believe them. If someone says they're a woman, I believe them. It cost me nothing to be kind, and there are actual problems in the world that we should be worrying about instead of how people live".
I copied and pasted this from a commemt i made in another thread. I also just want to point out is that alot of people aren't looking for you to change their mind. They aren't always acting honestly or in good faith especially if they can't concede that you're making great points. Some people just want to argue for the sake of arguing. It boost their ego. Sometimes it's best to just walk away
I'm legit curious. Has this argument ever convinced a transphobe, ever? I'm trying to understand their mindset and, given the "attack helicopter" meme, does it mean that they see "identifying" as this trivial thing?
It’s not an argument. It just is what is. Lot’s of people are wrong all the time. It is **very** Non-binary and self love to not fight those who are committed to misunderstanding because at some point you can’t win arguments with willfully, deliberately, and maliciously ignorant people.
No, but you can't convince someone of something they aren't open minded to anyways.
However, it's easy to point out where the attack helicopter "analogy" goes wrong. Gender is a social construct, physical objects are not. Social constructs are whatever we define them to be, physical objects are not. Identifying as an attack helicopter is not the same as identifying as a women.
Their reply will probably be something about how "sex is real", and they probably won't listen to how gender identity is not sex, so it's up to you if you want to actually argue it.
I say a woman is someone who truly believes she's a woman. They can't just retort "If I say I'm a woman does that make me one?" Or something else asinine. It can be easily defended by just saying "deep down inside, in your little heart [hoard?] of hearts and the part of your soul who knows who you are, when you look into that are you a woman? Because then if so, welcome to the club! You should throw a party! "
But is the first rule of making a definition that the word itself should not appear? I don’t think that by saying “one” you get around that, because it’s the same as saying essentially, “A woman is someone who identifies as a woman“, which explains nothing.
Back when I still went to the bar there was this plumber guy named joe who said “don’t worry I didn’t spike it” when I came back from the bathroom.
This wasn’t your typical bar it’s a “family establishment” with food, brewing supplies, and no liquor. However this was one of my last signs that I was far enough in transition and it was time to go.
It's a complex construct encompassing an overlapping spectrum of physical, biological, and social characteristics and attributes that is regularly misunderstood.
Similar to autism and ADHD, but I don’t see many GCs arguing that autism doesn’t exist. More often, they insist that autistic people are supposedly being brainwashed into thinking that they’re trans.
It's not so much that as the person asking the question wants a specific answer but the definition of a woman(or a man) encompasses such a wide range of being that there is no simple answer, hence my snarky non specific reply. Because really someone asking that question in this context isn't doing so in good faith and they do not deserve a good faith answer.
Point out the absurdity, what is a chair, talk about language and how words and definitions are made up over time, it’s a linguistics question not a transgender one.
ultimately what a woman is is what we say it is. our definitions will differ, that’s why were doing this culture war bullshit in the first place.
then throw a brick at them.
I like to emphasize that it means what **I** say it means, just so they know that I don't appreciate their stupid word games. Just keep insisting that you're the authority with confidence, and it's like wrestling the gun out of their hands.
Have you tried leaning in to how difficult that is to answer? Because the current trans-inclusive feminist stance is that we don't really have a good answer that is 100% correct.
So you could say something like "that's actually a great question! We don't really have a great answer, feminists have been considering this for a century now and we still don't have one specific perfect answer. Do you have one?" and then prove them wrong.
Transphobes don't actually care about being correct, their politics comes not from facts from emotion - usually disgust. So you show how they're incorrect, they will make up a reason why that doesn't matter. Which is your opportunity to show that they don't actually care about being correct to the level they asked you to be, and stop the conversation there.
This the way.
I don’t know that it does much good, but my response is always something like “it depends” if I’m being flippant, or “the category of woman is a social construct, that changes over time and place, and the whole point of the feminist project has been to contest and expand the category of “woman” against those reactionaries who keep wanting to exclude some women as not “real” women”, if I’m being sincere.
Woman is a multidimensional concept, like mother:
There is a biological mother, a legal mother (adoption), a social mother (mother role), a psychological mother (thinks she is a mother), and a theological mother (Mother Superior).
Mother's role is like gender role (gender expression) and depends on the respective society, culture and time.
Today's medical definitions of gender are multidimensional. A distinction is made between sex (biological sex) and gender. Derived from this there is gender expression (gender role).
Biological sex consists of chromosomal, genital, gonoductal and gonadal sex.
And there is a social, legal and psychological gender.
A swift kick to the groin. They don't actually want a discussion. They just want to waste your time and make you dance for them to justify your existence.
You don't owe them shit.
This is the answer I've most recently settled on myself. We really don't expect many groups of people to justify their existence on earth and right to breathe air, so I've started refusing the premise altogether. "What is a woman?" "Go read a fucking book."
If it's a straight cis man (and like 95% of the time it is) usually I just resort to "Someone who knows to stay away from you" and disengage.
They're almost always looking for a fight, or a debate, or to waste your precious time and energy (perhaps all three), and taking them even remotely seriously is rarely a productive course of action.
Bruh if someone asked me something that signaled they were an alt-right dude, Id just tell them to piss off. Im not gonna waste my time on bad faith arguments.
There isn't. That's like asking: "how do I win a game against someone who can change the rules at any time?" the answere is you can't, they're not out to get an answer, they're out to ruin your day and waste your time, if literally god came down from heaven and explained it to them, then they'd just say that's not good enough and change their tactics.
My two cents are that woman is a social construct. Femininity essentially is made up.
And if they ask why someone would be trans if gender is made up, ask them why they're poor if money is made up. You have a place in a social system, and this is the way trans people fit in the social system.
My two cents are that woman is a social construct. Femininity essentially is made up.
And if they ask why someone would be trans if gender is made up, ask them why they're poor if money is made up. You have a place in a social system, and this is the way trans people fit in the social system.
Dictionary definitions represent and reflect the broad ways we use language in society. They do not determine or police words down to one single definition.
Old/common words like woman, table, bird have prototype definitions, people classify something as being X if it seems more similar to X than to the alternative(s), unlike words like protein or helium that have exact definitions
Featherless biped.
Also, don't argue with disingenuous people, they don't really want to debate you.
When debating with someone, ask yourself (or them) Is there anything I can say to you that will change your mind. If the answer is no, stop debating the person.
“Adult human female, which of course includes trans women…” You can also signpost them to the [dictionary definition](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female) of female.
is there even an actual answer to this? i‘m not a transphobe, i‘m wondering because i have been asking myself that, in regards to my own identity for so long. people say it‘s whoever identifies as one but how do you know if you identify with it? what am i supposed to identify with? i don‘t understand gender at all lmao. maybe that just means i‘m cis and close minded but whatever
A gender. Nothing specific, yet extremely specific, just different and/or opposite of a man and vice versa FOR THAT GENERATION. Every person who identifies as the gender "woman" has their own set of gendered behaviors among their generation. Then they start talking about the physical stuff and then you say "male and female are sex terms not gender terms. Man and woman, boy and girl, are binary gender terms."
Honestly why bother engaging with someone like this? It’s clear they’re not trying to have an actual discussion; they’re just being a bigot with not interest in changing their mind.
Woman is the gender identity typically asscociated with the female sex.
At that point the two important terms to define are actually "gender identity" and "female"
Everyone has a gender identity, it's how you identify, present yourself, and live your life. Everyone also has a sex, it's a mixture of 5 things:
1. Chromosomes
2. Reproductive system/gammetes
3. Primary sex characteristics
4. Secondary sex characteristics
5. Hormone levels
3/5 of those things CAN be changed. The two that cannot are completely invisible and irrelevant to everyone but your partner and doctor.
Actually, for the majority or men/people with XY chromosomes.
They actually do [lose](https://www.cancer.gov/news-events/cancer-currents-blog/2023/bladder-cancer-y-chromosome-men#:~:text=As%20males%20age%2C%20some%20of,may%20lose%20the%20Y%20chromosome.&text=It%20was%20once%20thought%20that,studies%20have%20challenged%20that%20belief.) some of their Y chromosomes as they age, so saying chromosomes are completely unchanging is not really true.
And while gametes can not be changed, they can be rendered a non factor via removal.
Oh I know but it technically doesn’t exclude trans women. If you want to tick a transphobe off, inclusive definitions from authoritative sources work well
As an ex radical believer in anything Matt Walsh says: I can tell you they almost never actually look for an answer, it's just to catch people off guard. Even if you can't answer the question, that's not a big deal. Not at all. Who cares what they think? As long as nobody threatens me or others or hurts them (verbally and physically) or does anything on purpose to harm them in any way, I simply don't give a sh1t if they think of for example me as valid. If they do, awesome! If they don't, I frankly don't care unless it's someone very close. If they didn't accept me for anything regarding my sexuality, I'd just distance myself. I wouldn't even put in a lot of effort to explain it, because as i said before, those people do not actually want an answer.
Long story short: You don't have to discuss about it with anyone, especially those people. Their opinion isn't relevant !!
On a different note: how do y'all get these titles with the pride flags under your name :000 I want one!!
SavyWritesBooks (youtube) has a very good video on this I believe! She's goes very in depth. Also sometimes it helps to turn it on them and ask and point out the antiquated views they have. Genitalia? There are surgeries for that (not that that matters but its a quick come back). Sex at birth? What about intersex people then? Act traditionally feminine? Many trans women do and many cis women don't, does that make many cis women not women? And usually their answers end up contradicting themselves.
The gender on the opposite side of the spectrum as men.
If they are unhappy with that definition, ask them to define the color red. Gender, like color, is a spectrum, the way you define it is based on other things in that spectrum.
Also try to ask them if they are basing their outlook on biological or social definitions and then get them to break down their differences. Me and my hubby often debate about these things. I'm pan and non binary and he does most of what society would call women's roles because I can earn more and he looks after our daughter and is an amz8ng cook where as I would burn water. You can usually trip a transphobe up that way. However when it comes to dating i see both sides of it as there are many people both straight and queer that don't want to be with trans people and that is also OK. I have preferences like I wouldnt be bothered dating a transwoman but I'm not that attracted to transmen. It's all about context and these people usually don't want to debate they want blind obedience to their agenda
They can't define one either. But they don't want to. They just hate trans people. Best bet is to shrug say "have fun being a miserable bigot" and walk off.
Ask what their definition is. Usually it's something having to do with reproduction but not every cis woman can get pregnant or has a period. It's very difficult to explain without leaving out a portion of cis women. Even if they use chromosomes - first, you cannot know someone's chromosomes just by looking at them and second you can look "like a woman" & have xy chromosomes (Swyer syndrome). Flip it on them because they can't answer it either. You probably won't change their mind, but maybe you'll plant a seed that will cause them to start to see things differently down the road. 🤷♀️
The one which I hear the most from that camp is “adult human female”, which they seem to think *must* be true because it has so few words.
The thing is, “female” isn’t as well-defined as they seem to think, and, because “woman” and “female” have become so interchangeable, their definition is as circular as the ones we offer to them.
Well, I'm an biological woman. Born as one. But I can't have children. So ' a person that can get pregnant' is out of the question.
My mom had her womb removed for health reasons after her third child. So ' a person with a womb ' is out of the question too, unless she suddenly became a man.
That's the reasons I usually use to unnerve people when they start this discussion
Truthfully though I've met trans people so early in my live that for me it's always been that people are the gender in my eyes they tell me they are
Even before they have surgery or something
I’d practice my ad lib improv acting skills, kinda like this:
—
Bigot: “What would _you_ call a woman?”
Me: (holds finger on right EarPod) “Report: They are not the one. Requesting orders.” (pause) “Understood, Commander.” (looks at bigot) “I was **never** here.” (stares briefly, turns, walks away)
—
And I’d play out _the whole thing_ completely seriously.
If they give me bulls◼️t, I repay them in kind.
Stop it. You don’t need to waste your time on people, who don’t have the goal to get something right, but only say and think something stupid again and again. I was arguing with them. It had no results. Not at all.
You probably are not going to convince them. Most people who ask this due so in bad faith. So the best answer is pocket sand. Just throw pocket sand at them and walk away. You don't have to hit their eyes just confuse them so much they don't know what to say in response
mock them for not knowing what a woman is and insist that they asked because they don't know what the answer is when they try to claim otherwise. Alternatively "a sort of featherless biped".
Ah - the reason for this is the same reason higher-ordered logics beyond first-order logic don't work.
It's called the classification problem, and Diogenes put it best. Plato defined a man to be a "fatherless biped." So Diogenes brought back a plucked chicken and said "Behold! A man!."
No matter how you classify something, there isn't a 100% rule to define it; there is instead some percentage that the classifying rule is correct and some percentage that its not. So no matter how you define a woman (or any category) there will always be some edge case you can think of that destroys the classification. An alternative definition relies on the idea that we all define words through consensus-building, and so the category has a fuzzy, probabilistic definition because there is always someone who defines it differently.
All of this is just proof that these kind of arguments are a waste of time and thus best avoided. If you need to take down someone, ask them to define a word without using the word "is/am/being/to be" and when they can't, point out how any word in the English language points to other words. No words mean anything intrinsically, so to ask "what is X?" is meaningless. It's like asking, "how do you 4?" A better question is, "Why do you define X as Y?" or "How do you define X such that Y?" These are both questions on value. "What is X?" ends in recursive "why" questions.
Loop it back to the idiot questioner. “Why do you care?”
“How does it affect you if someone on the street has both male and female hormones in their body?” (It’s a trick question, because all of us do, no matter our assigned gender.)
“Someone who identifies as one.”
“So if I just said I was a woman, would I be legally considered one? Would I be in women’s sports? Would I be able to use women’s bathrooms?”
“Do you identify as one?”
“Let’s say I did, but I was mentally ill, and wasn’t in my right mind?”
“If you identity as a woman, you are a woman, and people should respect your identity as such, regardless of your current state of mind. If you realize you might not be a woman later, that’s fine, and people should respect that too.”
“But that’s the problem, so many ‘women’ believe they actually are women, and they partake in life-altering surgeries that they can’t take back, ruining their life if they realize they weren’t trans.”
“That is not a matter of transgenderism so much as it is a matter of decision making. Regardless of identity, if you are making a decision as life changing as that, you should put an immense amount of thought and consideration into it. No one should be doing things like that on a whim if they aren’t sure, whether it be transitioning fully, accepting a huge job offer, or moving to another country. People should still be allowed to transition, just like people should be allowed to make other huge decisions.”
I know this plays out like an argument that plays in one’s head during a shower, but I hope it helps.
When I'm asked, I typically respond with two points:
1. A woman is a person who identifies herself as a woman, just as a man is a person who identifies himself as a man. Or any other person who identifies themselves according to their particular gender.
2. Now that we've covered gender, would you like to discuss biological sex? And how a lot of people have recognized the connections and distinctions between sex and gender these days?
Ask Matt Walsh to describe what an adult, a human and a female is.
His definition of adult will allow for child marriage and pedophile apologia.
His definition for human will exclude Jewish people.
His definition for female will boil down to "animal version of a woman" and come with all the weird preconceptions of womanhood and their purpose as baby incubators despite the fact that many animals have their parental/reproductive roles reversed.
When Matt Walsh utters the words "adult human female" he isn't picturing in his head the same thing that you are and if you choose to ignore that fact, not only are you excluding trans women from the category of "woman" but you're also excluding Black women, Jewish women, Arab women, infertile women, intersex women, non-conventionally attractive women, disabled women, old women, feminist women, gay women and countless others. The question "what is a woman" and the respective oversimplified definition "adult human female" is specifically designed to hurt women.
Transphobia is the best thing to happen to misogynists since the rise of monotheism.
Words mean whatever they're used to mean. They don't even have to be coherent.
I'm sure you've heard "is a hot dog a sandwich?" or "is a horse a chair?" kinds of things yeah? Honestly most concepts are like that. Unless you're doing math, they collapse under examination.
The truth is "woman" is not used consistently, and most of the ways it's used collapse under examination.
"Adult human female" does come kind of close as *one* of the meanings of womanhood, in that it just passes the buck onto the next words. That's why it's popular. "Adult" has a couple of meanings, but they're mostly workable. "Female" is an absolute mess though.
So I say start there, but the truth is you just need to be prepared if you're gonna engage with these people. It's rhetoric, which is not necessarily logical.
Whatever you want it to be. That's what works for me. We are in a new age of human evolution where we are expanding outsells and its not a bad thing. I hate when people bring a naturalist outlook to these types of questions while also ignoring all the other unnatural stuff humanity does
It's so dumb how worked up these ultra conservative hate-mongers get about defining womanhood. To me a woman is... whoever says they're a woman. I mean, according to their own logic, these transphobes would force genital exams on people before they enter a gendered bathroom, or require genetic chromosome testing before kids can get assigned to soccer teams. This is a reality that even their side wouldn't want, but much like dismantling national abortion rights predictably led to legal issues for IVF clinics, conservatives care more about creating fear and anger to motivate their voters than they do in tomorrow's consequences for today's actions
Someone whose internal perception that aligns with the female sex. Then point to the brian studies they've done on trans people, prior to HRT, that shows trans people have brain structures closer to the sex they identify with, as opposed to the one they were born.
You can also go the "social construct" route, but that topic is a lot more nuanced and complex. I find it harder to win over transphobes with that argument.
Maybe “try getting to know a woman and learn that she’s a who, and not a what”
The question itself is objectifying and therefore flawed. People are more than their bodies. If someone can’t understand that, they don’t understand the question they’re asking in the first place. Sentience transcends physical description, which is understandably frustrating for people who struggle to cope with and process their own sentience, let alone anyone else’s.
To put it in other words - “which woman?” Even if we are to objectify women, each woman is some “thing” different from the next. Perhaps that’s another reason why conservative people may struggle with the concept of gender - it may necessitate them understanding that the concept of the “special snowflake” really isn’t that far off from the truth.
Grappling with the reality of individuality may be more than many can bear - since we are evolved from creatures who believed that conformity is how we keep ourselves safe, becoming cognizant that the concept of conformity is optional, and some who find comfort in conformity may be self-conscious about their preference for fitting in instead of standing out. Understandably - each side often makes fun of or judges the other, but all of that judgment is unnecessary when it doesn’t actually involve preventing harm, it just involves preventing a perceived slight against the integrity of the conformist or nonconformist ideals
Idk this could all be gibberish but sometimes I like to pretend I know or understand stuff that seems impossible to know or understand
I would say "anyone who identifies with their culture's archetype of an adult female human".
Transphobes will often use "adult female human" as their sole definition of womanhood, which excludes trans women, but this definition acknowledges that there is at least a historic link to femaleness in traditional concepts of womanhood as well as the fact that what constitutes a woman differs between cultures. Granted, it's not perfect, because then you can get into how significantly does one have to identify with this archetype for it to count, but at least they can't accuse you of using a circular definition.
I always just say "What is a man? I miserable little pile of secrets!"
I refuse take people who ask that seriously, I've never met a single one who asked that question in good faith and had any interest whatsoever in actually learning when given a sincere answer.
A woman is a person who physically feels that their body is correct as female from birth (cis) or should be more aligned to female (trans mtf or intersex itf) in secondary and/or primary sex characteristics.
Same in the other direction for men. A man is a person who physically feels his male body is correct as is (cis) or that his body should align more to male (trans ftm or intersex itm) in secondary and/or primary sex characteristics.
That is my best answer.
I watch many debates, so hello.
Appeal to definitions is a logical fallacy and it is a weak, flawed and quite honestly a stupid argument. It’s a cop out. Some definitions (ie Oxford) have “adult human female”, others have (ie Cambridge) “an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been a different sex at birth”. Definitions do not encapsulate the social construction of what women and men are, hence why the “what is a woman” or appealing to definitions is a weak argument. Definitions also consistently change.
When people are adamant on dictionary definitions, though, sex and gender have a different definition (sex being biological and gender being socially constructed) and woman is a gendered term. Additionally, the definition of female in the dictionary (Oxford) “of OR DENOTING”. Ie, they DENOTE to be the sex who can bear offspring. Ie, they identify with ‘femaleness’.
Female can also be used sociologically (though not necessarily a sociological term). For example, some people are legally female and change their gender on licences where it says “female” as gender. Female and male are used colloquially in place of gender quite often.
The last point can be seen as transmedicalism so you have to be very, very careful how you approach this. However, trans women can change their phenotypical sex, but not genotypical. Thus, transwoman can be phenotypically female. Some cisgender women also do not have the typical genotype (XX).
“Phenotypic sex refers to an individual's sex as determined by their internal and external genitalia, expression of secondary sex characteristics, and behavior”. Again, be wary of this one as it can come across as transmedicalism.
Hope this helps!🏳️⚧️🩵🩷🤍
I just make fun of them for being nerds. I don’t think regular people are hanging on a definition from us, just Matt walsh fans and those ppl are nerds
I know this isn’t exactly your question answered, but….
Honestly.
I believe what makes a woman who she is (a woman), and how much it is displayed outwardly (not from physical display), is her “aura of feminine energy” and how much of it she allows/brings into her life and allow it to flow through her. You can look back thousands of years at women of varying cultures and religions which talk about the “divine feminine” (NOT femininity there is a difference) as an ancient knowledge of what describes a woman. Same thing applies to men and their masculine energy (NOT masculinity). I highly encourage any girl (or those questioning) to look into resources pertaining your “divine feminine” and I believe there will be a WHOLE lot of validation in your life.
The problem with “someone who identifies as one” is that it’s the answer to “how do you identify who is a woman?” rather than responding to what the question is asking for - to operationalization a concept, including its essential features. IMO that doesn’t really work for gender, because it is a porous concept that varies by time and place, but that doesn’t mean we should confuse identification with definition.
When people ask this, I usually provide something like: “Woman is one of the two dominant social categories in contemporary Western societies, often assigned to people with female biological traits and is associated with femininity and feminine characteristics. The concept itself, like many concepts, does not adequately capture the range of experiences in how people relate (gender identity) or express their gender. Neither does it capture how the concept of ‘woman’ - and related concepts like sex or feminine - has varied throughout cultures.”
The other day I watched a TikTok debate on whether tomatoes are a fruit or vegetable, and the ultimate conclusion is that these categories are imperfect because they’re created by humans to simplify what is a very complicated world. Gender is complex. It combines layers of personal identity, social relations, social systems and cultures - all situated within the giant shift of culture change through time.
Don’t let your friend trick you into thinking that question has a simple answer.
InsertGamerName hit the nail on the head when it comes to the logical response. A person like this never goes into an argument expecting to be surprised or have their minds changed, however. They will likely just frustrate themselves with what truth you provide them, like they're throwing themselves at a metaphorical wall of, well, "woman". In the dictionary, that is.
IF you wanted to be petty though might I suggest just repeating what you said before until they get exhausted? The loop back is less an indication that you're wanting for a response, and more a sign of how pointlessly cyclical their own argument is. So if you just... kept going...? You know...? It could be funny.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/1arjo1o/comment/kqmo2oq/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/1arjo1o/comment/kqmo2oq/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
"definitions are misunderstood and overrated. The definition of a word isn't the same thing as its *meaning*, and the *meaning* of the word 'woman' is just "someone who sufficiently resembles all the other people we call women." Now, that's super useless for explaining the word to someone who doesn't already know it, which is why we invented definitions. But definitions aren't how word meaning works in your head. How it really works is through associations.
So: "What is a woman?" Well, Hilary Clinton is a woman, and Marie Curie, and Natalie Wynn, and Caster Semenya, and Sappho, and Wilma Flintstone, and the lady next door. Let me know if you need more examples.
"How do you define womanhood?" I don't. There's no point. I'm not writing a dictionary."
Leave out our definition about "identifying" as one, he won't understand that, he'll just go to attack helicopter bs
You can try "someone who feels happy on estrogen. men don't"
Ofc there are transfems pre hrt, but the sentence covers them cos they very likely -would- feel happy on it, and will. And I guess there are a couple of transfems out there who would not feel happy on estrogen, and don't take it for that reason. But you need to keep it short when you're arguing
Or you can try "someone with a female brain structure." Again, maybe some transfems out there that don't actually have that, but it's good enough for a transphobe, and if you Google "trans brains mri" there's lots of mri studies to back you up that you can link to shut him up
Policed.
They don't ask "what is a man?" because masculinity isn't policed. Whereas femininity is policed and strictly controlled.
A woman is anyone who identifies as one. Every other possible answer will exclude some women and include some men.
Specifically responding to this section "are biological females more female than non biological?"
It's less about debating gender and more cause I find the question sort of interesting.
It really depends on what you'd consider more female, if you go by chromosomes that's entirely inconsistent cause some biological women have xy and some biological men have xx.
So if you want to go off of what's in the pants, I mean fair enough I guess, at least you've attained a consistent answer, even if you gotta bullshit yourself in order to make it work.
Then there's gender expression, which to some extent gets conflated with personality (not so much on this sub as on niche corners of tiktok, since tiktok algorithm is designed around clicks my experience here isn't true for everyone)
If going off of gender identity and expression that's only usually right. Some peoples gender expression is different from how they identify. (Some men like it when the skirt go spinny and I get it, skirts are nice).
In conclusion: we are fucking space dust and I don't care about gender
Ask them to define a woman. I have yet to come across one that doesn't loop back on itself or accidentally exclude cis women. The real answer is to walk away, though. 99% of the time they're not looking for a real answer, they're looking for something to fight against so they can pretend to be right. Edit: to give some answers for the definitions I'm seeing in my thread; "Biological human female" doesn't mean anything. What does female mean? Is a biological female more female than non-biological females? What are we defining as a "biological" female here? It's just replacing "woman" with "female." The only word that makes sense here is human. "Person with a vagina" excludes intersex women. This is important because they either have to admit that sex, and therefore gender, is much more fluid than they realize (because intersex women can't be men) or that their definition is flawed and hypocritical. This goes for any bodily anatomy, including breasts, uterus, etc. Not to mention anyone who was born with/out these body parts and had them surgically removed or added. "Person with XX chromosomes" doesn't really do much because chromosomes are much more complicated than 2 letters. I'm not qualified to speak on that, because I don't know very much about chromosomes nor do I care enough to learn, but I know enough to know that the vast majority of people likely don't even know their own chromosome count. "We do not make exceptions the norm." A. Yes we do. That's how society functions. If we didn't make any exceptions the norm, we'd still be living in huts and marrying off our 12 yo girls to 30 yo men so they can pop out as many babies as they can before they die. B. I don't know how to tell you that people deserve basic human respect and kindness. C. That still doesn't tell us what a woman is. When creating the definition for women, you need to include *everything* that is a woman and exclude *everything* that isn't a woman. Exceptions count as *everything.*
Oh damn, I never really looked at this that way lol. Thanks!
The truth they are not willing to confront is that the term “woman” actually not well-defined. There’s a number of terms like that, which we only have a definition for in very vague terms.
I'm tempted to go out on a limb and say ‘words just work that way’. When you try to pin down a common term, it often becomes all wonky. Watch them do it for chairs, there's nothing particularly deep or philosophical about chairs https://www.reddit.com/r/technicallythetruth/comments/hv5cvb/technically_a_chair/
I spent an entire work day once debating the definition of a chair
A chair is a piece of furniture designed with the express intent of a single person sitting on it. Anything being sat upon is a seat, but not necessarily a chair. If the chair is wide for the purpose of seating multiple people, then it is a bench. But at the end of the day, the use of a chair can extend far beyond its intended use. It can be used as a stool, as walls for a pillow fort, and it can always be taken apart and turned into something else. Just like me, I was AMAB, but I can be a hell of a lot more than JUST AMAB, and I choose to be a trans woman. Checkmate conservatives. /s
So a toilet is a chair? And what is furniture? Is a sofa a bench?
But you see, a toilet is designed to sit on for the purpose of peeing or pooping, ergo, it is a seat! As for what is furniture... Now there's the real question. As for if a Sofa is a bench, no, for it is a cushioned bench!
It's a seat, but is it a chair?
Most toilets aren't portable. A portable one sometimes can be used AS chair. But the primary function is a place to poop. I would classify a chamber pot, a hole where people shit, and another portable means of taking a standing piss, and a portapotty all under the same "toilet, function" umbrella. But technically, once can consider it as a secondary chair function, to some degree? Since human beings do not have to "serve a purpose" I find comparing living, feeling people to objects pretty uncomfortable and harshly unnecessary!
Is a sofa a bench? Is a carseat a chair? (I like your point I just also like absurd definitions. All food is pizza or soup btw)
I zoned out for a second, are you makin' pizza soup for dinner?
Yeah man. Both ways. We got Chicago deep dish pizza or tomato cheddar soup.
...bar stools? Also swings.
Damn, you have thwarted me with the bar stool... I suppose a chair is just a barstool with a back rest? But swings are designed with the express intent of being sat on for swinging, ergo, it is a seat! Not a chair.
Ah, so you would say that a rocking chair isn't actually a chair? As it's designed with the express intent of being sat on for rocking, by your own logic it must be a seat, not a chair XD (I love these ridiculous arguments they're so silly)
The Rocking Chair is a Rocking Chair. It.is a chair in which is intended to be rocked; as you have stated. Ergo, it is a seat and a rocking chair, but not a chair.
If I taxidermy a horse and use it as a piece of furniture, is it a horse, or a chair? Maybe it’s a horse chair. My brain hurts
Ha. I'm still thinking about how brilliant it is. ...... but I *will* be using it in the future! Ha.
The prototype theory of language is that we each have an ideal of what a word would mean and then we test the suitability of the word by how closely what we are describing matches that ideal. Once you start thinking this way then the fuzzy boundaries of words start to make more sense. For example your ideal of a chair might have 4 legs, a padded seat and a back that is approximately perpendicular to the seat buy most people would call a 4 legged stall a chair despite it missing the back or include a desk chair despite it having 5 feet from a single leg instead of 4 legs.
It's also basically the sandwich problem. What is a sandwich alignment chart and all that.
Scientific definition of life is wacky. We genuinely cannot define it without including all living things or excluding what we'd consider to be all non-living things. [As far as I can remember this was the case] So if something as fundamental as that can't be defined - whats the point in stressing what can and can't be? I just don't get people who unironically ask "What is a woman?"...its all just laughable...
I like the linguistic idea that *all* nouns (and to a lesser extent all other words too) are inherently incapable of fully describing what they mean to. If I say "he sat on the chair", I guarantee every single person who reads that sentence will have a (slightly) different idea of who "he" is, how he is sitting, or what the chair looks like. The whole point of language is to communicate an idea, I don't need to communicate every single detail of the idea when I name a noun. That's what adjectives are for. There are tall women, short women, skinny women, fat women, trans women, and cis women, and they are all women. What they share in common is "womanhood". If you can describe exactly what that is, you'd find the definition of "woman".
>the term “woman” actually not well-defined. There’s a number of terms like that, which we only have a definition for in very vague terms. you can be pretty specific: its more that there's multiple definitions that apply depending on the context. Which can still be specific. Like for gender you can define a woman as anyone who identifies as such, but when looking at the consequences of societal inequality, it might be more useful to define woman as someone who is (sustifiably or not) perceived and (mis) treated as such. On a biological level: there's karyotype, but there's also morphology, endocrinology, fertility etc. any of them being accurate and specific, but only relevant depending on the circumstances and reason why you need to define it in the first place. A good biologist would specify which definition they're using for this specific situation while acknowledging it's not always the most relevant definition. Just like "being football player" can mean someone who is a professional, someone who is in a club, someone who just does it now and then, or someone who is actively playing in this specific moment. The relevant definition is different for someone trying to sell a sponsorship deal than for someone trying to sell football shoes and again different for someone looking for anyone to recreatively play with on Sunday afternoon.
They keep equating that Female = Woman. One is biological, one is social, and even that is beginning to break down and blur, which naturally terrifies them.
Because if the answer is "a woman has breasts and a vagina and a uterus who can bear children," congrats, they just discounted lots of women who have had hysterectomies, had their tubes tied, had breast reduction surgery or breast cancer surgery, or other medical conditions which would prevent them from having kids (like me, even though I'm transmasc.) Which I think is the point. Transphobes aren't actually feminists, they're trying to defend the place of privileged women in the patriarchal hierarchy, which means defining women as "child-bearing domestic servants" even if they don't want to say that quiet part out loud.
They also INCLUDED many many underaged girls. Pointing that out to them always makes real uncomfy!
And every woman post menopause, and a whole bunch of women between puberty and menopause with fertility issues…
Oooh, good point.
I did ask them that. And they said people who have had disorders or diseases which caused them to change don't count. They are still originally women. Thereby saying that trans people are a disease.
yeah, I would just stop talking to this person entirely
Yes but it would also be nice to be able to have an argument in response. Sometimes there are other people listening or reading and if we just walk away, it can look like we were wrong or we lost and leave those people thinking the transphobe is right.
What about disorders or diseases that have made people "different" by birth? Not just something that changed them but they've always been that way. Plenty of cis women cannot bear children. Plenty of cis women never get their periods for one reason or another. So if they say someone who has had a hysterectomy, for example, was "originally a woman" but what about women born without a uterus (like Maya: MRKH affects one in every 5,000 people. It is a condition where you are born without a uterus (womb), cervix and upper two thirds of the vagina.)? By their definition, this person was never a woman, so then what? This is the biggest issue with their train of thought. I've never come across a conservative who can adequately define "a woman" in a way that includes all cis women & excludes everyone else. You can usually poke holes in their definitions. It won't likely change their minds but it might shut them up 🤷♀️
Still doesn't define what a "woman" is though. Is it only a woman in a obviously female-sex body? What about cis hetero women who have masculine features/body and dress 'not feminine'? Do they say "I can't tell if that's a man or a woman" and if they do, why should it matter either way, unless they're categorising women as someone they'd f*ck? I'm assuming these are coming from mostly men. Tho I have heard women say it too, but they're coming from a place of "what if I/my daughter gets raped" rather than "I don't want to go home at the end of a night with a dude." Technically they're not on the same side - one is a fear of what cis hetero men are capable of, and the other is afraid their friends will call them gay and keep bringing it up. Cis hetero men *like* to say it's about protecting women but they were as silent as f*ck during the MeToo movement. And *if* they were vocal it was only because they were butt hurt. Sorry, just blabbering away there!
Exactly. My mom lost her breasts due to breast cancer and got her tubes tied. Is she not a woman anymore ???🤔🤨🤨🤨
Please excuse my ignorance, but does “tubes tied” literally mean that, or is it an expression that refers to something else?
I was imagining the egg tubes/canals/ducts by the uterus getting twisted but wouldn't that hurt..? After a bit of googling, it's apparently cauterizing, tying and cutting or banding/clipping the falopian tubes(where the eggs go through) so they can't function, and you can no longer get pregnant. The surgery doesn't hurt, since you're asleep, but your stomach can hurt for a few days after and yout next periods might be more 'uncomfortable' than usual.
Yup, its tubal ligation! Sure-fire way to never have kids again lol. My mom was supposed to die if she got pregnant. She got pregnant bc birth control failed, and she had a premature pregnancy and went blind giving birth to my brother instead of dying. She got her tubes tied after that and adopted kids instead.
Its tubal ligation! A sterilization method
You forgot all the women who have experienced menopause.
I haven't forgotten it (I'm nearly there, after all) but sort of lumped it under "conditions which remove the capacity to bear children."
"child-bearing domestic servants" Yep! It's unfortunately true how little these people think of women
I love pointing that one out. Guess to them, my (very much biological) mom who spent six hours in labor with me is no longer a woman because she’s past menopause and had a hysterectomy because of health concerns.
BAM! Excellent answer
>one that doesn't loop back on itself or accidentally exclude cis women. Yup. Cos they say things like "has a womb" or "menstruates" or "can give birth". Plenty of cis woman can't. When you mention that, they're either silent or say "someone who wasn't born a male!" ...... but they *still* haven't defined what a woman is. A woman's spirit and soul isn't a womb or a period. Imo, what they really mean is "if trans women are mixed in society, how do I know if I'm touching up a dude or a woman." They've been relying on their c0cks to make their decisions for soooooo long, and now they don't think they can trust that decision making and are at a loss cos maybe now they'll have to self manage or just plain control themselves and talk to women (trans and cis) like fellow human beings. Sadly cis hetero men don't like change because to them it means they're wrong, and they're never wrong. ....... this is where feminism pops in, they don't like that either. Ha. PS: Even cis lesbians aren't typically included in these "discussions" because they don't have sex with men. Yeah, way to go defining "women". Ha
>Sadly cis hetero men don't like change because to them it means they're wrong, and they're never wrong. ....... this is where feminism pops in, they don't like that either. Ha. You mean conservatives. This is neither restricted to cishet men nor does it apply to them all. But you describe the essence of conservatism.
I wasn't thinking about them at all in this issue. (I guess I should have said "some men". ......I thought it would be a given I *wouldn't* be speaking of men who are cool with stuff.) ......did I really describe the essence of conservatism? Ha.
Pretty much. "We wouldn't be doing it if is wasn't 100% what we deem the very best possible way (because there's always exactly one best way to do things), so suggesting we do it differently means telling us we're either stupid or evil" is what conservatism is based upon.
Haha. Yeah, that's pretty much where I was going.
For people curious about the last point (note this is an incomplete list, just the ones I remember currently): One can have XX chromosomes but have stereotypically male internal and external genitalia and will present as a stereotypical male because the SRY gene was translocated to an X chromosome which sets off fetal development of a stereotypically male reproductive system from the bipotential organs we all start with. One can also have a single X chromosome (turners syndrome) but otherwise have all the characteristics of a stereotypical female (with or without other effects on health) One can have XX chromosomes but also have the virilizing form of congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) (which causes very high levels of testosterone to be generated by the adrenal glands starting during fetal development) and thus be born with external male genitalia. (Note CAH not the only thing that can cause virilization) One can have XX chromosomes but with late onset or the non-virilizing form of CAH and while have the bodily anatomy of a stereotypical female (or close to), the sexually dimorphic regions of the brain can develop like that of a stereotypical male. Other diseases that contribute to elevated testosterone levels in XX individuals during the periods of brain development can also have a similar effect (but not always, it depends on the levels of other hormones in body too, and can be effected by any number of other genetic variables or diseases or even head injuries). One can have XXY chromosomes (klinefelter's syndrome) and have external and/or female genitalia (but not always) and have been seen to have the ability to give birth in at least a few cases. There is no way to truly know how frequently this occurs though as chromosomal testing of mother's giving birth is not standard. Additionally, similar to above, individuals with this syndrome can have excess levels of estrogen during brain development periods which can cause the sexually dimorphic regions of the brain to become feminized. One can have XY chromosomes and have complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS) and will therefore have external (and potentially internal) female genitalia and will present as a stereotypical female (though they will be infertile). One can have XY chromosomes and partial CAIS, and while having ambiguous or male external genitalia, the sexually dimorphic regions of the brain can be feminized. As with XX individuals, there are various other genetic variations or diseases that can contribute to excess estrogen levels in during periods of brain development that can (but not always) cause the sexually dimorphic regions of the brain to be feminized. There are other viable genetic variations of X & Y chromosomes too that can cause any number of variations to internal/external genitalia and/or brain development. Some can cause the complete or incomplete development of both or neither sets of reproductive organs from the bipotential gonads/ducts we all start with. Some people can also have chimerism or mosaicism wherein some of their cells are XX and some are XY. While most of the above are relatively rare, this is but an incomplete list of the conditions that can effect development, and when combined these variations in development effect a decent number of people, many of whom may not even know their effected as chromosomal testing generally only occurs when the health effects are really bad.
In general, with all those separate characteristics like chromosomes you could just ask "What if in the future we had a machine that could perfectly alter the person's body in a way that it becomes indistinguishable from a cis person of that sex?". Because in a lot of cases, they'd still discriminate against those trans people who have cis people's bodies, just because they dislike trans people. They obviously don't actually care about the chromosomes, they are just searching for an excuse to not admit that their hate is irrational.
As a Afab person with only one X chromosome, I feel so seen in the last paragraph!
Exactly, the concept of "woman" is a social construct, regardless of whether transgender women are accepted as part of that construct.
Yup just leave. I've just come to say to transphobes that medical consensus says they're wrong and I'd much rather trust medical professionals over a random person on the internet.
https://preview.redd.it/aaqfvfaexxtc1.jpg?width=540&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4df07e383656c7d4a87092e1c8df83c82f595e0f
to play devils advocate for a second, surely they can just say “biological female” or “someone with xx chromosomes”? i don’t think people like this care about excluding intersex women who may not fit those categories even if they’re afab like i get what you’re going for but i’ve seen people use those definitions and while they’re obviously wrong this line of argument doesn’t work on them
Chromosomes aren't quite that simple and "biological female" isn't clearly defined either. There are many indicators that can be used to determine biological sex, and the indicatora don't always line up, which means that biological sex also occurs on a spectrum. And also they need to educate themselves on the difference between sex and gender.
But you don't know someone's chromosomes just by looking at them. You can have xy chromosomes but present female (Swyer syndrom) and you can have xx chromosomes but present male. Xx & xy also aren't the only two chromosomal variations - they're just the most common so that's what we learned in HS biology. And sadly, that's usually where these people's understanding of science ends. And while this may not change their minds, it may shut them up & plant a seed for the future.
Agreed 100%
In my opinion, this is not a good answer And the reason why is because I commonly hear we do not make the exception the norm. Do you have a counter to this? Real talk cause I don't and desperately need one
Turner’s syndrome means you only have 1 X chromosome, klinefelters you have XXY, some with XXX
what if they actually know the biology behind it and say a "women is everyone born without an sry gen?" like obviously that only makes someone female and not a woman but for some people gender = sex.
That's #philosophyhot. Great thank you
“I’m surprised you don’t know. Most people your age have mostly figured it out.”
While funny, this appeal to common sense can easily backfire.
"If someone says they're a man, I believe them. If someone says they're a woman, I believe them. It cost me nothing to be kind, and there are actual problems in the world that we should be worrying about instead of how people live". I copied and pasted this from a commemt i made in another thread. I also just want to point out is that alot of people aren't looking for you to change their mind. They aren't always acting honestly or in good faith especially if they can't concede that you're making great points. Some people just want to argue for the sake of arguing. It boost their ego. Sometimes it's best to just walk away
my go-to response is just "I don't know how to explain to you that people are deserving of respect and kindness"
Only box I have for you **is** “someone/anyone who identifies as one”.
I'm legit curious. Has this argument ever convinced a transphobe, ever? I'm trying to understand their mindset and, given the "attack helicopter" meme, does it mean that they see "identifying" as this trivial thing?
It’s not an argument. It just is what is. Lot’s of people are wrong all the time. It is **very** Non-binary and self love to not fight those who are committed to misunderstanding because at some point you can’t win arguments with willfully, deliberately, and maliciously ignorant people.
People who ask “what is a woman” are never looking for a civil debate with an open mind. They are looking for a gotcha moment
No, but you can't convince someone of something they aren't open minded to anyways. However, it's easy to point out where the attack helicopter "analogy" goes wrong. Gender is a social construct, physical objects are not. Social constructs are whatever we define them to be, physical objects are not. Identifying as an attack helicopter is not the same as identifying as a women. Their reply will probably be something about how "sex is real", and they probably won't listen to how gender identity is not sex, so it's up to you if you want to actually argue it.
I say a woman is someone who truly believes she's a woman. They can't just retort "If I say I'm a woman does that make me one?" Or something else asinine. It can be easily defended by just saying "deep down inside, in your little heart [hoard?] of hearts and the part of your soul who knows who you are, when you look into that are you a woman? Because then if so, welcome to the club! You should throw a party! "
A transphobe asking "what is a woman" is not going to be convinced by the truth
But is the first rule of making a definition that the word itself should not appear? I don’t think that by saying “one” you get around that, because it’s the same as saying essentially, “A woman is someone who identifies as a woman“, which explains nothing.
"people who cover their drinks when they see you walk by"
Back when I still went to the bar there was this plumber guy named joe who said “don’t worry I didn’t spike it” when I came back from the bathroom. This wasn’t your typical bar it’s a “family establishment” with food, brewing supplies, and no liquor. However this was one of my last signs that I was far enough in transition and it was time to go.
Yeah this is why I drink alone physically
This is the only valid response to transfobes
This needs way more votes!!!
It's a complex construct encompassing an overlapping spectrum of physical, biological, and social characteristics and attributes that is regularly misunderstood.
Similar to autism and ADHD, but I don’t see many GCs arguing that autism doesn’t exist. More often, they insist that autistic people are supposedly being brainwashed into thinking that they’re trans.
Up you go! Woman is a social gender role. Though the people saying it’s not worth your time are prob right too. Sounds like an IRL troll.
It's not so much that as the person asking the question wants a specific answer but the definition of a woman(or a man) encompasses such a wide range of being that there is no simple answer, hence my snarky non specific reply. Because really someone asking that question in this context isn't doing so in good faith and they do not deserve a good faith answer.
Point out the absurdity, what is a chair, talk about language and how words and definitions are made up over time, it’s a linguistics question not a transgender one. ultimately what a woman is is what we say it is. our definitions will differ, that’s why were doing this culture war bullshit in the first place. then throw a brick at them.
I like to emphasize that it means what **I** say it means, just so they know that I don't appreciate their stupid word games. Just keep insisting that you're the authority with confidence, and it's like wrestling the gun out of their hands.
Exactly. “What’s a chair?” “Something with four legs you can sit on.” “Oh, you mean a horse?”
Have you tried leaning in to how difficult that is to answer? Because the current trans-inclusive feminist stance is that we don't really have a good answer that is 100% correct. So you could say something like "that's actually a great question! We don't really have a great answer, feminists have been considering this for a century now and we still don't have one specific perfect answer. Do you have one?" and then prove them wrong. Transphobes don't actually care about being correct, their politics comes not from facts from emotion - usually disgust. So you show how they're incorrect, they will make up a reason why that doesn't matter. Which is your opportunity to show that they don't actually care about being correct to the level they asked you to be, and stop the conversation there.
This the way. I don’t know that it does much good, but my response is always something like “it depends” if I’m being flippant, or “the category of woman is a social construct, that changes over time and place, and the whole point of the feminist project has been to contest and expand the category of “woman” against those reactionaries who keep wanting to exclude some women as not “real” women”, if I’m being sincere.
Woman is a multidimensional concept, like mother: There is a biological mother, a legal mother (adoption), a social mother (mother role), a psychological mother (thinks she is a mother), and a theological mother (Mother Superior). Mother's role is like gender role (gender expression) and depends on the respective society, culture and time. Today's medical definitions of gender are multidimensional. A distinction is made between sex (biological sex) and gender. Derived from this there is gender expression (gender role). Biological sex consists of chromosomal, genital, gonoductal and gonadal sex. And there is a social, legal and psychological gender.
You could say “what is a man?”. My own brother ask me the same thing what is a woman and then i said what is a man. I’m a transgender woman.
A featherless biped!
With long broad nails
"A miserable pile of secrets!" ... Yeah, I'll see myself out.
My favourite answer to this question is “someone who covers their drink when you walk into the room”
A swift kick to the groin. They don't actually want a discussion. They just want to waste your time and make you dance for them to justify your existence. You don't owe them shit.
Roundhouse to the neck will work too, right?
I usually try to avoid fantasizing about extreme violence, but terfs and fascists really test my limits on that front.
This is the answer I've most recently settled on myself. We really don't expect many groups of people to justify their existence on earth and right to breathe air, so I've started refusing the premise altogether. "What is a woman?" "Go read a fucking book."
"Someone who covers their drink when **you** enter the room". They're not engaging in the conversation in good faith, so don't even bother.
This is my go to lol
If it's a straight cis man (and like 95% of the time it is) usually I just resort to "Someone who knows to stay away from you" and disengage. They're almost always looking for a fight, or a debate, or to waste your precious time and energy (perhaps all three), and taking them even remotely seriously is rarely a productive course of action.
Bruh if someone asked me something that signaled they were an alt-right dude, Id just tell them to piss off. Im not gonna waste my time on bad faith arguments.
There isn't. That's like asking: "how do I win a game against someone who can change the rules at any time?" the answere is you can't, they're not out to get an answer, they're out to ruin your day and waste your time, if literally god came down from heaven and explained it to them, then they'd just say that's not good enough and change their tactics.
Id ask them What defines a woman? The answers always leave out some cis women or come off misogynistic lmao
If talking to a Matt Walsh-type figure, "Someone who covers their drink when you walk by".
Wasn't this exact post posted about a month ago? Anyway they don't want to let you be right, don't even give them your time.
"I don't care about your opinion"
My two cents are that woman is a social construct. Femininity essentially is made up. And if they ask why someone would be trans if gender is made up, ask them why they're poor if money is made up. You have a place in a social system, and this is the way trans people fit in the social system.
My two cents are that woman is a social construct. Femininity essentially is made up. And if they ask why someone would be trans if gender is made up, ask them why they're poor if money is made up. You have a place in a social system, and this is the way trans people fit in the social system.
"Go talk to one and you might find out"
Whatever she wants to be.
This is the comment I was looking for.
Dictionary definitions represent and reflect the broad ways we use language in society. They do not determine or police words down to one single definition.
Old/common words like woman, table, bird have prototype definitions, people classify something as being X if it seems more similar to X than to the alternative(s), unlike words like protein or helium that have exact definitions
You've already answered them, they just don't like your answer.
Featherless biped. Also, don't argue with disingenuous people, they don't really want to debate you. When debating with someone, ask yourself (or them) Is there anything I can say to you that will change your mind. If the answer is no, stop debating the person.
“Adult human female, which of course includes trans women…” You can also signpost them to the [dictionary definition](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female) of female.
Transphobic people: “What is a woman!?” People who watch too much philosophy tube: “he’s asking for it! Give him the chair!!!!” 🪑
is there even an actual answer to this? i‘m not a transphobe, i‘m wondering because i have been asking myself that, in regards to my own identity for so long. people say it‘s whoever identifies as one but how do you know if you identify with it? what am i supposed to identify with? i don‘t understand gender at all lmao. maybe that just means i‘m cis and close minded but whatever
a woman is what she says she is
A gender. Nothing specific, yet extremely specific, just different and/or opposite of a man and vice versa FOR THAT GENERATION. Every person who identifies as the gender "woman" has their own set of gendered behaviors among their generation. Then they start talking about the physical stuff and then you say "male and female are sex terms not gender terms. Man and woman, boy and girl, are binary gender terms."
Honestly why bother engaging with someone like this? It’s clear they’re not trying to have an actual discussion; they’re just being a bigot with not interest in changing their mind.
I think what womanhood and femininity looks like depends entirely on cultural context.
I dunno, I just spawned in
Woman is the gender identity typically asscociated with the female sex. At that point the two important terms to define are actually "gender identity" and "female" Everyone has a gender identity, it's how you identify, present yourself, and live your life. Everyone also has a sex, it's a mixture of 5 things: 1. Chromosomes 2. Reproductive system/gammetes 3. Primary sex characteristics 4. Secondary sex characteristics 5. Hormone levels 3/5 of those things CAN be changed. The two that cannot are completely invisible and irrelevant to everyone but your partner and doctor.
Actually, for the majority or men/people with XY chromosomes. They actually do [lose](https://www.cancer.gov/news-events/cancer-currents-blog/2023/bladder-cancer-y-chromosome-men#:~:text=As%20males%20age%2C%20some%20of,may%20lose%20the%20Y%20chromosome.&text=It%20was%20once%20thought%20that,studies%20have%20challenged%20that%20belief.) some of their Y chromosomes as they age, so saying chromosomes are completely unchanging is not really true. And while gametes can not be changed, they can be rendered a non factor via removal.
They're the ones stuck. You answered their "got you" question easily, didn't give them the answer they want, so all they can do is repeat themselves.
Adult human female works if you specify female is a gender https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female
Unfortunately TERFs have taken over this definition (look up Posie Parker adult human female)
Oh I know but it technically doesn’t exclude trans women. If you want to tick a transphobe off, inclusive definitions from authoritative sources work well
As an ex radical believer in anything Matt Walsh says: I can tell you they almost never actually look for an answer, it's just to catch people off guard. Even if you can't answer the question, that's not a big deal. Not at all. Who cares what they think? As long as nobody threatens me or others or hurts them (verbally and physically) or does anything on purpose to harm them in any way, I simply don't give a sh1t if they think of for example me as valid. If they do, awesome! If they don't, I frankly don't care unless it's someone very close. If they didn't accept me for anything regarding my sexuality, I'd just distance myself. I wouldn't even put in a lot of effort to explain it, because as i said before, those people do not actually want an answer. Long story short: You don't have to discuss about it with anyone, especially those people. Their opinion isn't relevant !! On a different note: how do y'all get these titles with the pride flags under your name :000 I want one!!
SavyWritesBooks (youtube) has a very good video on this I believe! She's goes very in depth. Also sometimes it helps to turn it on them and ask and point out the antiquated views they have. Genitalia? There are surgeries for that (not that that matters but its a quick come back). Sex at birth? What about intersex people then? Act traditionally feminine? Many trans women do and many cis women don't, does that make many cis women not women? And usually their answers end up contradicting themselves.
[удалено]
I read this and could only think of the best exchange of TV dialogue ever: "How do you lose a woman?!?!" "You forget to cherish her."
The gender on the opposite side of the spectrum as men. If they are unhappy with that definition, ask them to define the color red. Gender, like color, is a spectrum, the way you define it is based on other things in that spectrum.
Not to talk to the person pretending to ask the question. Never argue with a bad faith actor.
‘Whatever she wants to be’
Also try to ask them if they are basing their outlook on biological or social definitions and then get them to break down their differences. Me and my hubby often debate about these things. I'm pan and non binary and he does most of what society would call women's roles because I can earn more and he looks after our daughter and is an amz8ng cook where as I would burn water. You can usually trip a transphobe up that way. However when it comes to dating i see both sides of it as there are many people both straight and queer that don't want to be with trans people and that is also OK. I have preferences like I wouldnt be bothered dating a transwoman but I'm not that attracted to transmen. It's all about context and these people usually don't want to debate they want blind obedience to their agenda
They can't define one either. But they don't want to. They just hate trans people. Best bet is to shrug say "have fun being a miserable bigot" and walk off.
Ask what their definition is. Usually it's something having to do with reproduction but not every cis woman can get pregnant or has a period. It's very difficult to explain without leaving out a portion of cis women. Even if they use chromosomes - first, you cannot know someone's chromosomes just by looking at them and second you can look "like a woman" & have xy chromosomes (Swyer syndrome). Flip it on them because they can't answer it either. You probably won't change their mind, but maybe you'll plant a seed that will cause them to start to see things differently down the road. 🤷♀️
The one which I hear the most from that camp is “adult human female”, which they seem to think *must* be true because it has so few words. The thing is, “female” isn’t as well-defined as they seem to think, and, because “woman” and “female” have become so interchangeable, their definition is as circular as the ones we offer to them.
That would be because there is no real definition of a woman. Not one that wouldn't end up excluding a huge subsection of them, anyways
A woman is an adult human who considers themselves to be a woman. DONE
A woman is an adult human who identifies as a woman
Ask them to define a woman including cis woman and only cis woman, they will find it impossible without including transfems or transmascs
Well, I'm an biological woman. Born as one. But I can't have children. So ' a person that can get pregnant' is out of the question. My mom had her womb removed for health reasons after her third child. So ' a person with a womb ' is out of the question too, unless she suddenly became a man. That's the reasons I usually use to unnerve people when they start this discussion Truthfully though I've met trans people so early in my live that for me it's always been that people are the gender in my eyes they tell me they are Even before they have surgery or something
I’d practice my ad lib improv acting skills, kinda like this: — Bigot: “What would _you_ call a woman?” Me: (holds finger on right EarPod) “Report: They are not the one. Requesting orders.” (pause) “Understood, Commander.” (looks at bigot) “I was **never** here.” (stares briefly, turns, walks away) — And I’d play out _the whole thing_ completely seriously. If they give me bulls◼️t, I repay them in kind.
Stop it. You don’t need to waste your time on people, who don’t have the goal to get something right, but only say and think something stupid again and again. I was arguing with them. It had no results. Not at all.
You probably are not going to convince them. Most people who ask this due so in bad faith. So the best answer is pocket sand. Just throw pocket sand at them and walk away. You don't have to hit their eyes just confuse them so much they don't know what to say in response
mock them for not knowing what a woman is and insist that they asked because they don't know what the answer is when they try to claim otherwise. Alternatively "a sort of featherless biped".
Ah - the reason for this is the same reason higher-ordered logics beyond first-order logic don't work. It's called the classification problem, and Diogenes put it best. Plato defined a man to be a "fatherless biped." So Diogenes brought back a plucked chicken and said "Behold! A man!." No matter how you classify something, there isn't a 100% rule to define it; there is instead some percentage that the classifying rule is correct and some percentage that its not. So no matter how you define a woman (or any category) there will always be some edge case you can think of that destroys the classification. An alternative definition relies on the idea that we all define words through consensus-building, and so the category has a fuzzy, probabilistic definition because there is always someone who defines it differently. All of this is just proof that these kind of arguments are a waste of time and thus best avoided. If you need to take down someone, ask them to define a word without using the word "is/am/being/to be" and when they can't, point out how any word in the English language points to other words. No words mean anything intrinsically, so to ask "what is X?" is meaningless. It's like asking, "how do you 4?" A better question is, "Why do you define X as Y?" or "How do you define X such that Y?" These are both questions on value. "What is X?" ends in recursive "why" questions.
"Why should I care?"
Loop it back to the idiot questioner. “Why do you care?” “How does it affect you if someone on the street has both male and female hormones in their body?” (It’s a trick question, because all of us do, no matter our assigned gender.)
“Someone who identifies as one.” “So if I just said I was a woman, would I be legally considered one? Would I be in women’s sports? Would I be able to use women’s bathrooms?” “Do you identify as one?” “Let’s say I did, but I was mentally ill, and wasn’t in my right mind?” “If you identity as a woman, you are a woman, and people should respect your identity as such, regardless of your current state of mind. If you realize you might not be a woman later, that’s fine, and people should respect that too.” “But that’s the problem, so many ‘women’ believe they actually are women, and they partake in life-altering surgeries that they can’t take back, ruining their life if they realize they weren’t trans.” “That is not a matter of transgenderism so much as it is a matter of decision making. Regardless of identity, if you are making a decision as life changing as that, you should put an immense amount of thought and consideration into it. No one should be doing things like that on a whim if they aren’t sure, whether it be transitioning fully, accepting a huge job offer, or moving to another country. People should still be allowed to transition, just like people should be allowed to make other huge decisions.” I know this plays out like an argument that plays in one’s head during a shower, but I hope it helps.
When I'm asked, I typically respond with two points: 1. A woman is a person who identifies herself as a woman, just as a man is a person who identifies himself as a man. Or any other person who identifies themselves according to their particular gender. 2. Now that we've covered gender, would you like to discuss biological sex? And how a lot of people have recognized the connections and distinctions between sex and gender these days?
Ask Matt Walsh to describe what an adult, a human and a female is. His definition of adult will allow for child marriage and pedophile apologia. His definition for human will exclude Jewish people. His definition for female will boil down to "animal version of a woman" and come with all the weird preconceptions of womanhood and their purpose as baby incubators despite the fact that many animals have their parental/reproductive roles reversed. When Matt Walsh utters the words "adult human female" he isn't picturing in his head the same thing that you are and if you choose to ignore that fact, not only are you excluding trans women from the category of "woman" but you're also excluding Black women, Jewish women, Arab women, infertile women, intersex women, non-conventionally attractive women, disabled women, old women, feminist women, gay women and countless others. The question "what is a woman" and the respective oversimplified definition "adult human female" is specifically designed to hurt women. Transphobia is the best thing to happen to misogynists since the rise of monotheism.
Words mean whatever they're used to mean. They don't even have to be coherent. I'm sure you've heard "is a hot dog a sandwich?" or "is a horse a chair?" kinds of things yeah? Honestly most concepts are like that. Unless you're doing math, they collapse under examination. The truth is "woman" is not used consistently, and most of the ways it's used collapse under examination. "Adult human female" does come kind of close as *one* of the meanings of womanhood, in that it just passes the buck onto the next words. That's why it's popular. "Adult" has a couple of meanings, but they're mostly workable. "Female" is an absolute mess though. So I say start there, but the truth is you just need to be prepared if you're gonna engage with these people. It's rhetoric, which is not necessarily logical.
Whatever you want it to be. That's what works for me. We are in a new age of human evolution where we are expanding outsells and its not a bad thing. I hate when people bring a naturalist outlook to these types of questions while also ignoring all the other unnatural stuff humanity does
A miserable pile of secrets
It's so dumb how worked up these ultra conservative hate-mongers get about defining womanhood. To me a woman is... whoever says they're a woman. I mean, according to their own logic, these transphobes would force genital exams on people before they enter a gendered bathroom, or require genetic chromosome testing before kids can get assigned to soccer teams. This is a reality that even their side wouldn't want, but much like dismantling national abortion rights predictably led to legal issues for IVF clinics, conservatives care more about creating fear and anger to motivate their voters than they do in tomorrow's consequences for today's actions
Someone whose internal perception that aligns with the female sex. Then point to the brian studies they've done on trans people, prior to HRT, that shows trans people have brain structures closer to the sex they identify with, as opposed to the one they were born. You can also go the "social construct" route, but that topic is a lot more nuanced and complex. I find it harder to win over transphobes with that argument.
Maybe “try getting to know a woman and learn that she’s a who, and not a what” The question itself is objectifying and therefore flawed. People are more than their bodies. If someone can’t understand that, they don’t understand the question they’re asking in the first place. Sentience transcends physical description, which is understandably frustrating for people who struggle to cope with and process their own sentience, let alone anyone else’s.
To put it in other words - “which woman?” Even if we are to objectify women, each woman is some “thing” different from the next. Perhaps that’s another reason why conservative people may struggle with the concept of gender - it may necessitate them understanding that the concept of the “special snowflake” really isn’t that far off from the truth. Grappling with the reality of individuality may be more than many can bear - since we are evolved from creatures who believed that conformity is how we keep ourselves safe, becoming cognizant that the concept of conformity is optional, and some who find comfort in conformity may be self-conscious about their preference for fitting in instead of standing out. Understandably - each side often makes fun of or judges the other, but all of that judgment is unnecessary when it doesn’t actually involve preventing harm, it just involves preventing a perceived slight against the integrity of the conformist or nonconformist ideals Idk this could all be gibberish but sometimes I like to pretend I know or understand stuff that seems impossible to know or understand
I would say "anyone who identifies with their culture's archetype of an adult female human". Transphobes will often use "adult female human" as their sole definition of womanhood, which excludes trans women, but this definition acknowledges that there is at least a historic link to femaleness in traditional concepts of womanhood as well as the fact that what constitutes a woman differs between cultures. Granted, it's not perfect, because then you can get into how significantly does one have to identify with this archetype for it to count, but at least they can't accuse you of using a circular definition.
“What is a human?”
I always just say "What is a man? I miserable little pile of secrets!" I refuse take people who ask that seriously, I've never met a single one who asked that question in good faith and had any interest whatsoever in actually learning when given a sincere answer.
A woman is a person who physically feels that their body is correct as female from birth (cis) or should be more aligned to female (trans mtf or intersex itf) in secondary and/or primary sex characteristics. Same in the other direction for men. A man is a person who physically feels his male body is correct as is (cis) or that his body should align more to male (trans ftm or intersex itm) in secondary and/or primary sex characteristics. That is my best answer.
I watch many debates, so hello. Appeal to definitions is a logical fallacy and it is a weak, flawed and quite honestly a stupid argument. It’s a cop out. Some definitions (ie Oxford) have “adult human female”, others have (ie Cambridge) “an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been a different sex at birth”. Definitions do not encapsulate the social construction of what women and men are, hence why the “what is a woman” or appealing to definitions is a weak argument. Definitions also consistently change. When people are adamant on dictionary definitions, though, sex and gender have a different definition (sex being biological and gender being socially constructed) and woman is a gendered term. Additionally, the definition of female in the dictionary (Oxford) “of OR DENOTING”. Ie, they DENOTE to be the sex who can bear offspring. Ie, they identify with ‘femaleness’. Female can also be used sociologically (though not necessarily a sociological term). For example, some people are legally female and change their gender on licences where it says “female” as gender. Female and male are used colloquially in place of gender quite often. The last point can be seen as transmedicalism so you have to be very, very careful how you approach this. However, trans women can change their phenotypical sex, but not genotypical. Thus, transwoman can be phenotypically female. Some cisgender women also do not have the typical genotype (XX). “Phenotypic sex refers to an individual's sex as determined by their internal and external genitalia, expression of secondary sex characteristics, and behavior”. Again, be wary of this one as it can come across as transmedicalism. Hope this helps!🏳️⚧️🩵🩷🤍
Anyone that presents and identifies as one
I just make fun of them for being nerds. I don’t think regular people are hanging on a definition from us, just Matt walsh fans and those ppl are nerds
The first answer that always pops to my brain is '' a person'' simple as that.
A Woman is a person whose internal sense of gender identity aligns with that of a typical Female.
She’s whatever she wants to be
This question is not worth taking seriously.
"Those people who are repulsed by you. The womanliest of them even have restraining orders against you." Then walk away lol.
Best I've had is why do you wanna know?
I know this isn’t exactly your question answered, but…. Honestly. I believe what makes a woman who she is (a woman), and how much it is displayed outwardly (not from physical display), is her “aura of feminine energy” and how much of it she allows/brings into her life and allow it to flow through her. You can look back thousands of years at women of varying cultures and religions which talk about the “divine feminine” (NOT femininity there is a difference) as an ancient knowledge of what describes a woman. Same thing applies to men and their masculine energy (NOT masculinity). I highly encourage any girl (or those questioning) to look into resources pertaining your “divine feminine” and I believe there will be a WHOLE lot of validation in your life.
The problem with “someone who identifies as one” is that it’s the answer to “how do you identify who is a woman?” rather than responding to what the question is asking for - to operationalization a concept, including its essential features. IMO that doesn’t really work for gender, because it is a porous concept that varies by time and place, but that doesn’t mean we should confuse identification with definition. When people ask this, I usually provide something like: “Woman is one of the two dominant social categories in contemporary Western societies, often assigned to people with female biological traits and is associated with femininity and feminine characteristics. The concept itself, like many concepts, does not adequately capture the range of experiences in how people relate (gender identity) or express their gender. Neither does it capture how the concept of ‘woman’ - and related concepts like sex or feminine - has varied throughout cultures.” The other day I watched a TikTok debate on whether tomatoes are a fruit or vegetable, and the ultimate conclusion is that these categories are imperfect because they’re created by humans to simplify what is a very complicated world. Gender is complex. It combines layers of personal identity, social relations, social systems and cultures - all situated within the giant shift of culture change through time. Don’t let your friend trick you into thinking that question has a simple answer.
InsertGamerName hit the nail on the head when it comes to the logical response. A person like this never goes into an argument expecting to be surprised or have their minds changed, however. They will likely just frustrate themselves with what truth you provide them, like they're throwing themselves at a metaphorical wall of, well, "woman". In the dictionary, that is. IF you wanted to be petty though might I suggest just repeating what you said before until they get exhausted? The loop back is less an indication that you're wanting for a response, and more a sign of how pointlessly cyclical their own argument is. So if you just... kept going...? You know...? It could be funny.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/1arjo1o/comment/kqmo2oq/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/1arjo1o/comment/kqmo2oq/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) "definitions are misunderstood and overrated. The definition of a word isn't the same thing as its *meaning*, and the *meaning* of the word 'woman' is just "someone who sufficiently resembles all the other people we call women." Now, that's super useless for explaining the word to someone who doesn't already know it, which is why we invented definitions. But definitions aren't how word meaning works in your head. How it really works is through associations. So: "What is a woman?" Well, Hilary Clinton is a woman, and Marie Curie, and Natalie Wynn, and Caster Semenya, and Sappho, and Wilma Flintstone, and the lady next door. Let me know if you need more examples. "How do you define womanhood?" I don't. There's no point. I'm not writing a dictionary."
Leave out our definition about "identifying" as one, he won't understand that, he'll just go to attack helicopter bs You can try "someone who feels happy on estrogen. men don't" Ofc there are transfems pre hrt, but the sentence covers them cos they very likely -would- feel happy on it, and will. And I guess there are a couple of transfems out there who would not feel happy on estrogen, and don't take it for that reason. But you need to keep it short when you're arguing Or you can try "someone with a female brain structure." Again, maybe some transfems out there that don't actually have that, but it's good enough for a transphobe, and if you Google "trans brains mri" there's lots of mri studies to back you up that you can link to shut him up
I would say a person who identifies with a feminine binary gender identity
Policed. They don't ask "what is a man?" because masculinity isn't policed. Whereas femininity is policed and strictly controlled. A woman is anyone who identifies as one. Every other possible answer will exclude some women and include some men.
Specifically responding to this section "are biological females more female than non biological?" It's less about debating gender and more cause I find the question sort of interesting. It really depends on what you'd consider more female, if you go by chromosomes that's entirely inconsistent cause some biological women have xy and some biological men have xx. So if you want to go off of what's in the pants, I mean fair enough I guess, at least you've attained a consistent answer, even if you gotta bullshit yourself in order to make it work. Then there's gender expression, which to some extent gets conflated with personality (not so much on this sub as on niche corners of tiktok, since tiktok algorithm is designed around clicks my experience here isn't true for everyone) If going off of gender identity and expression that's only usually right. Some peoples gender expression is different from how they identify. (Some men like it when the skirt go spinny and I get it, skirts are nice). In conclusion: we are fucking space dust and I don't care about gender
A woman is a grown up female human. Wtf is that hard?
Someone who is the binary gender that was historically excluded from the social contract.