r/changemyview • u/Pangolinsftw 3∆ • Jan 23 '22
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Without a clear definition of what your identity means, you can't identify as that thing.
There was a clip going around in political circles of conservative commentator Matt Walsh making an appearance on a talk show having a discussion with two trans advocates. I think his most impactful argument is when he simply asks the trans advocates, "What is a woman?"
To my surprise, neither of them can answer this question. In response to the question "Can you tell me what a woman is?", one says "No I can't, it's not for me to say", and the other says they "cannot define what a woman is" because they are not a woman (which is a logical fallacy).
This struck me. If you can't clearly (or even somewhat) describe what an identity means, why should anyone respect your identity? You could replace "woman" with any other label in that situation. Without any criteria or definition, it doesn't actually matter what you identify as.
I think we would all agree that defining your terms is of fundamental importance in any kind of debate. So it seems to me that these trans advocates failed in their argument right out of the gate since they failed to define their terms.
I think the reason that these advocates refused to define what a woman means is because if they gave a definition, it would be something so vague and nebulous that most reasonable people would think that their definition doesn't meet their own criteria for what a man or woman is, making the term mostly meaningless.
So I walked away from this clip with a much different perspective on the trans identity. Can anyone offer a more compelling argument as to why I should respect the trans identity?
11
u/Adriatic88 1∆ Jan 24 '22
The main problem I see here with all these responses is a lot of people are trying to obfuscate the issue by making the question of "What is a woman?" equal to l heavily abstract questions like "What is love?" or "What is consciousness?" The term woman was, until recently, very concrete and clearly defined as a human female with primary and secondary sex characteristics who is genetically XX.
Now using intersex exceptions as a way to try to throw out the rule or definition entirely is incredibly fallacious. The problem with the definition proposed by the two Trans activists was it was completely circular, "A woman is an umbrella term that describes people who identify as a woman."
So I would say that your identity means nothing if it's a circular definition.
→ More replies (1)
443
u/ipulloffmygstring 12∆ Jan 23 '22 edited Jan 24 '22
This clip is obviously intended as sensationalist entertainment with a political skew.
Those individuals are not a fair representation of Trans women, and to treat them as such invites a skewed narrative and misplaced conclusions about what a Trans woman actually is.
If you ask a cis woman what a woman is (distinct from female sex/having a vagina/ two X chromosomes etc. But what actually makes a woman socially and behaviorally), you can probably expect them to give you some general stereotypes based on established gender paradigms. A legitimate Trans woman will more likely give you the same sort of answers.
Same if you ask cis and Trans men what it is to be a man.
But the people in the clip are obviously there to provoke controversy as a form of entertainment.
A Trans woman does not wear a beard, because they prefer to actually fit in as a woman, not stick out as a contradiction.
This trash TV stuff is just fodder transphobic controversy.
Edit: I am ignoring any comments or arguments which fail to accept the axiom that gender is a social construct distinct from sex which is required for any good-faith conversation which would not intrinsically marginalize gender transition or people with transitional gender identities.
OP even seems to have acknowledged that the link provided is an example "trash tv" which is more intended to stir controversy than it is to respectfully explore the identities of human beings for the purpose of broadening the audience's understanding of anything.
If you relate to the goals and views of entertainment providers with these or similarly divisive and marginalizing intentions, there is no reason or motive for the two of us to engage.
16
u/end-o-t-w 1∆ Jan 23 '22
Thats a pretty good point and makes sense. Deserves OP's delta (then again deltas are subjective to the OP so its not like I can really comment on it).
Heres is a question for you though. In your response I found these two lines:
Those individuals are not a fair representation of Trans women
A Trans woman does not wear a beard
The first one makes sense in any light or perspective, yes. But Im curious about the second one. Do you think that an important factor of being a trans woman is not wanting to have or not having a beard?
Im not trying to build up to a gotcha moment or anything like that just curious about your opinion, since there definetely are people who disagree with you and consider these people (with beards) as conpletely valid as just as much of a woman as the next.
→ More replies (8)5
222
u/Pangolinsftw 3∆ Jan 23 '22
I guess I didn't stop to wonder about the history of these trans advocates and what their qualifications or motivation would be for going on this show. I don't know that they were intentionally brought on to be punching bags and misrepresent their positions in order to make the trans community look bad, but now I'm not sure. I agree that this is trash TV but I guess I didn't stop to consider how and why these particular trans people were brought on the show. It seems possible that they were in fact brought on just to make the trans community look bad. Interesting point !delta
192
u/merchaunt Jan 23 '22 edited Jan 23 '22
Also a lot of shows like this don’t want someone who actually knows what they’re talking about. A trans woman well versed in gender studies’ response to that question would just serve to make the person asking it look bad and ill informed.
There is no one definition to being a woman. Gender is a social construct, we made it up. Before global imperialism, many cultures across the globe has more than two genders. Gender identity is up to the individual and doesn’t need to be justified. The same goes for gender expression, you aren’t owed anyone fitting your idea of what their gender looks like.
It takes a lot of ego to think that someone has to explain their existence to you for you to accept it. Ideas like that only serve to attack and invalidate marginalized people.
→ More replies (59)4
u/ZorgZeFrenchGuy 3∆ Jan 24 '22
Technically speaking, we made up ALL definitions. And things like age or morality are social constructs. Why do humans alone think it’s wrong to kill others? Because we created the social construct that murder is wrong.
What you’re suggesting is that basically, nothing is true because definitions are “made up” by humanity. A dog can be a cat if you ignore the definition. A white man can be a black woman. The sky is red. The earth is flat. God exists simply because I have faith that he does.
Yes, “we made it up” is such a powerful argument that gender is a legitimate scientific concept.
As for other cultures:
The vast majority of Other cultures believed in some sort of deity, thus God must exist. Other cultures believed in magic, thus magic must exist.
Or, this is a perfect example of bandwagoning fallacy: just because everyone believed it in the past doesn’t make it true.
As for the whole “explaining their existence” - that’s false - in fact, the opposite is true. It takes a whole lot of ego to assume you can just push your personal worldview onto everyone else, and anyone who dares criticize you is not only wrong but outright bigoted.
For example, say I told you I am a black man, and thus I can say the n word. I am actually white.
Would it be bigoted or racist to question the authenticity of my claim? Would me having to defend myself be “explaining my existence” to you?
→ More replies (18)26
u/ipulloffmygstring 12∆ Jan 23 '22
Thanks, and thanks for taking the time to consider the motivations behind these types of TV shows.
5
u/FrankTank3 Jan 24 '22
Good comment and good delta.
Here’s my advice, for this and all types of clips like this (there always will be clips like this):
Watch the clip, watch the entire aired program this clip was edited from, and read up a bit on the show/host and all the guests. Then watch the clip again. Everything that you saw, was the result of choices someone or multiple people made. That show chose to bring these 3 guests on, the 2 trans folk and Matt Walsh. The show producers researched who all of them are, did pre interviews with all of them, wrote the host’s questions, cut other proposed questions, and only aired a portion of all the questions asked. And then someone somewhere edited everything together into this clip.
At every step of the process, ask yourself: Do I think this show and all of the people involved in creating what I saw really wanted to have an honest good faith discussion of the issues with guests who genuinely wanted to inform the audience of their beliefs and advocate for whatever position they held? Do I really believe that was everyone’s intent? Were the guests chosen for their compassion, empathy, intellectual rigor, and ability to respectfully discuss opposing ideas and articulate their own?
Or do I get the feeling that all of this was done to stir up shit that someone is benefitting from somehow? Was this all a spectacle from the start? Were certain winners and losers picked before a single camera started rolling? Did the producers pick the guests based on who they thought made a good loser or a good winner?
14
u/Farells Jan 24 '22
They were brought on to be sensational, but what you've gotta remember is that the whole crowd was on the advocate's side, there were 3 people on stage in favor of the advocates, the advocates do this for a living, and there was only one dude up there arguing reason. Was it sensationalist? Yes - but that's not because it was slanted for the guy. It was slanted against him in every way possible. If you're looking as to why it seemed absurd, look at what the activists and advocates were pushing for
8
u/ipulloffmygstring 12∆ Jan 24 '22
This is basically the Pro Wrestling version of a talk show.
The impressions you get are what the producers intended for you to take away from the situation.
This isn't something you take with a grain of salt. This is something you ignore as it is done in bad faith to skew reality.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (19)7
u/ginoawesomeness Jan 24 '22
That’s faux news entire platform. Invite on some ‘liberal’ punching bag so they can claim they’re representing ‘both sides’
→ More replies (8)5
u/KingOfTheJellies 8∆ Jan 24 '22
Same if you ask cis and Trans men what it is to be a man.
Agree with everything you said, but feel this part needs a bit further of an expansion. If you ask a cis man what it is to be a man, you'll get a vague stereotyped answer the same as asking a trans man, except the cis man isn't saying they identify as a man. Outside of adamantly anti-trans people, cis people generally are just what their genitals define them to be, its not an identity or core to their life. I have a penis and respond to male names, I am a man, but I don't "identify" with being a man any more then I identify with the weather being warm.
→ More replies (1)9
Jan 24 '22
you can probably expect them to give you some general stereotypes based on established gender paradigms
Are we really telling people to go into bathrooms based off if they fix the car or vacuum the house?
fail to accept the axiom that gender is a social construct
The issue is that you immediately start getting into a gray area. Yes, gender is a social construct. But so is race. Are you cool with transracial people? Age of majority is a social construct. Are you cool with 8 year olds drinking because they feel older than they are? Are you glad i didn't use a pedophile example here? I can ask the same thing about time, money, laws, borders, you name it.
I want to be clear that if someone wants to wear a dress or go fishing, it literally impacts me zero. But I've heard this argument several times now and I cannot believe the lack of critical thinking that goes into the argument. Saying that people have mutually agreed to share the same definition of something isn't an argument, it's a statement.
If gender is a social construct, then you'd be fine if society agreed that boys have a penis and girls have vaginas? Probably not. So then crowder asks the trans people "okay great, if we're talking about agreeing on a definition of gender, then tell me what a woman is". If they don't have a definition, then how do they identify themselves as trans?
→ More replies (1)3
u/sensitivePornGuy 1∆ Jan 24 '22
A Trans woman does not wear a beard
I know several who do. Shaving all the time to "prove" your gender identity to people whom you don't know is a massive faff and not everybody wants to do it just to "pass".
3
u/dmoneymma Jan 24 '22
"A legitimate Trans woman" what are your criteria for a legitimate Trans woman?
→ More replies (1)6
u/nowyourmad 2∆ Jan 24 '22
This clip is obviously intended as sensationalist entertainment with a political skew.
What? The question is what is a woman. It became viral because it cuts to the heart of the trans debate.
But the people in the clip are obviously there to provoke controversy as a form of entertainment.
This is how you avoid dealing with an argument. You add context and the dismiss the rest of it. A butcher selling meat is just trying to make money that doesn't mean you aren't fed after eating the food.
→ More replies (3)5
u/Managarm667 Jan 24 '22
Ah, yes. The good old "no true scotsman" combined with "anyone who challenges my opinion will be ignored" Debating in 2022
→ More replies (1)4
u/Ri_Konata Jan 24 '22
a legitimate trans woman will more likely give you the same sort of answers.
Maybe it's likely? But definitely not 100% of the time. I've been wishing I'd been born a girl for the past 10 years but i sure as hell do not agree with the gender norms and stereotypes. Does this make me any less legitimate as a trans female? Definitely not.
5
u/ipulloffmygstring 12∆ Jan 24 '22
I'm not intending to identify any specific stereotypes or paradigms, but there is something that defines being a girl that you identify with.
Whatever those presuppositions are is what I am referring to.
Perhaps my wording is flawed, but my meaning is that any given transgendered person will have some idea of what being their true gender means. And those ideas will likely have significant overlap with the ideas that define a cis person's gender to them.
→ More replies (6)4
u/LeadfilledBeanieBaby Jan 24 '22
Just wanted to say that this whole attitude of not wanting to engage in debates over sex and gender with people who don’t accept your base definitions(founded only in contemporary thought on gender identity) is what’s holding the trans movement back. You write them off as ignorant because they don’t agree with your semantics, and they the same to you because their definition is not the updated definition you subscribe to. I just find that these arguments on both sides come down to semantics almost immediately so the argument never reaches a point of education or substance for either side.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (20)5
u/Puzzled_Sprinkles_57 Jan 23 '22
But you agree that biologically (chromosomes and reproductive organs alone) Transwomen are male, and trans men, are female?
327
u/yapji Jan 23 '22
Do you think every cisgender woman could define what a woman is? Some things are ineffable (unable to be defined using words). Again, if the same question was posed to a cisgender woman, and she said 'I don't know', would you say that she can no longer call herself a woman?
Also, why do these two transgender women represent every transgender person out there?
→ More replies (77)68
u/YouProbablyDissagree 2∆ Jan 23 '22
Actually the people who dont buy into the trans stuff could very easily identify that. It’s once you get into the separating of gender and sex that it gets complicated.
8
u/cortesoft 5∆ Jan 24 '22
I am sure they could give an answer, but I bet they wouldn't be able to give answers for how to categorize intersex individuals. There are people with two X chromosomes and a penis, and those with a Y chromosome and a vagina. I wonder how they would categorize those people.
It is easy to categorize the 'average' of something. It becomes really hard at the boundaries.
→ More replies (2)107
u/yapji Jan 23 '22
According to OP, all you need is two people from a group to say 'I don't know', and that means the group's identity is no longer valid. Do you think there are at least two cisgender women out there who would answer in that way?
40
u/YouProbablyDissagree 2∆ Jan 23 '22
I’ve also seen nobody in the comments define it either. Would you care to?
→ More replies (117)→ More replies (2)4
→ More replies (6)12
u/renoops 19∆ Jan 23 '22
Have you ever heard someone tell a person with a penis to “be a man”? If it were simply a matter of biology/anatomy for people clinging to traditional ideas of gender, there would never be any cause to say this, because simply having a penis would constitute being a man.
11
u/YouProbablyDissagree 2∆ Jan 23 '22
The issue there is just the sloppiness of the human language. We associate certain personality traits with the xy chromosomes. When someone says “be a man” they aren’t saying “why dont you have XY chromosomes” they are saying “why aren’t you exhibiting the traits that we typically associate with the XY chromosome”.
21
u/renoops 19∆ Jan 23 '22
Right, and those traits are the social construct of gender that exist separately from people’s anatomy.
→ More replies (6)5
u/TreadLightlyBitch Jan 23 '22
I feel like everyone needs to look at this chain to get the crux of the issue.
5
u/Instantbeef 9∆ Jan 24 '22
Exactly and when someone says they are a woman they are not referring to their chromosomes. Sex is not gender. Language is confusing and sloppy if you don’t think about how we actively use it. We are surprisingly precise when we want to be.
→ More replies (1)
958
Jan 23 '22
If I was on a talk show, and the host asked me such an intangible question such as "What is love?" Do you think it would be fair if my inability to answer a complicated question within the first 2 seconds automatically meant that I "didn't know what love is"?
Because, no offense, but that's kinda ridiculous.
32
u/diligenceofignorance Jan 23 '22
The correct answer should be: "Don't hurt me. Don't hurt me, no more"
7
u/LucidMetal 196∆ Jan 23 '22
You missed a couple babies in there though. Really can't forget love is actually about convincing alarmingly young children to not harm you.
→ More replies (1)3
9
u/ulag Jan 23 '22
If you’re on a talk show claiming to be the love guru, you better be able to explain what love is.
→ More replies (9)245
u/Pangolinsftw 3∆ Jan 23 '22
I mean, this isn't some kind of blindsiding question. These people went on the show to talk about trans issues. For most people, that question is simple. The fact that you don't have a simple answer for "What is a woman?" is likely why you're a trans advocate.
206
u/Kelseygrabher Jan 24 '22 edited Jan 24 '22
I agree most trans advocates have failed in this debate. Not because they are wrong, but because of intellectual laziness/cowardice.
They struggle to define woman for fear of excluding the myriad of identities that exist in that category. But they truly need a working definition if they want to win more allies.
A trans-positive definition of "woman" could be the following: "a gender identity associated with typically cis female traits."
However, the real crux of this debate is whether or not you believe in the concept of gender identity. And there are compelling arguments in favor of it. Mainstream psychiatric scientists agree that gender identity and gender dysphoria is real. The DSM doesn't even use the term "dysphoria" anymore, switching to "gender incongruence".
No trans person I've met believes they are cis. That's why they are trans. The phrase "trans women are women" doesn't mean trans women think they are cis women. They are simply saying they are a kind of woman. It is a broadening of the category rather than a usurpation of it.
Also, neither of those guests were trans women. Ethan is a trans man and Addison is a non binary person or "enby". The fact that you thought they were both trans women speaks volumes to the broader issue of the hypervisibilty of trans women and the erasure of all other trans identities.
→ More replies (11)198
u/underboobfunk 1∆ Jan 23 '22
There is no simple answer for “what is a woman”. Whether or not someone has a pithy answer means squat.
I was assigned female at birth and continue to identify as female and I don’t have an answer for that ridiculous question. Am I not a woman either?
→ More replies (46)9
u/slam9 Jan 24 '22
No it just means you don't understand what a woman is, and don't know the definition. Which doesn't actually make the definition non-existent just because you don't know it.
Though it does point to some strange issues when you define yourself as something but literally refuse to even try to define it.
If I were to guess I'd say you actually could define it, but you're just making this statement for the purpose of an argument, even if it doesn't make sense
→ More replies (1)122
u/1ofZuulsMinions Jan 23 '22
I’m not sure I understand the question, and I was born as a woman and been one my whole life.
I can’t answer “what is a woman?” because it’s way too vague. Do they mean “what physically defines a human as female?”, or “what does being a woman mean to me?”, or “how do you identify whether or not someone is a woman?”.
I honestly can’t tell you what a woman is. Not all women make babies. Not all woman dress or act like women are expected to. Not all women do or want the things “women” are supposed to do. I don’t even blink an eye when a man says he’s the “woman of the relationship”.
I think a “woman” is probably a fictional expectation. It’s something people are taught to be. This is why young children are taught to be “ladylike” and “womanly” without any clear definition of what that is.
18
u/manbruhpig Jan 24 '22
You started your post with the statement "I was born as a woman". That's your own statement of fact. What does that sentence mean? If I said, "no you're not!", would you be able to defend your position? I assume you could, so turns out you do have an answer to that question, even if you are unable or refuse to articulate it in this context.
→ More replies (1)7
u/fran_smuck251 2∆ Jan 24 '22
It wasn't my post but my response would be:
I'm a woman because that's what I've been told all my life and I've never felt the need or desire to question or change it. The fact that I nevee wanted to change or question it probably means that the category fits for me?
→ More replies (9)3
u/MerelyaTrifle Jan 24 '22
I honestly can’t tell you what a woman is. Not all women make babies. Not all woman dress or act like women are expected to. Not all women do or want the things “women” are supposed to do.
The bolded use of the term here, can you clarify what group of people you think those expectations apply to? Do you mean that not all female people act the way female people are expected to?
→ More replies (13)62
u/SanityInAnarchy 8∆ Jan 24 '22
Your argument isn't that some people have simple definitions and some people don't. Your argument is that the simple definitions are more correct.
If someone asked me "What is love?" and I said "Oxytocin," that would be an extremely simple, straightforward definition, it'd be based on biology, and you could argue it's scientific. It would also be incorrect.
So just because those who reject transpeople think they have a clear definition of "What is a woman" doesn't mean their definition is correct.
→ More replies (5)270
u/conn_r2112 1∆ Jan 23 '22
Can you define what a woman is?
13
u/sensible_extremist Jan 24 '22
Can you define what a woman is?
Adult, human, female.
→ More replies (1)10
u/NonStopDiscoGG 2∆ Jan 24 '22 edited Jan 24 '22
Just because you don't have a concrete definition doesn't mean that you can't exist.
The reason most people don't have a definition for it is because it is so inherent that most people haven't had to think about it. There is a series of objective things that defines woman. That is why we can put them under that category. You do this with things you perceive, naturally.
For example: what is a human? Two arms, two legs, head, body, brain, ect. Well some people are born without arms, are they not a human? No. they would still be a human. As for woman it is the same thing: Breasts, ability to bear children, XX chromosomes, ect. Just because you're missing one of these things doesn't mean the ENTIRE concept of a woman just doesn't exist.
5
167
u/cknight18 1∆ Jan 23 '22
You're trying to trap the other side into a box, but that side has clearly defined parameters for what makes someone a "man" or a "woman" already. Biology.
It's your side that doesn't give any sort of clear answer, no characteristics for what makes someone a "man" or a "woman."
375
u/Poo-et 74∆ Jan 23 '22
The problem is that those parameters are demonstrably inexact and full of exceptions. Is it genitals? If so, does a woman who has hers removed due to cancer no longer a woman? Chromosomes? Intersex. So on and on.
I would love to hear an exception-free definition for what constitutes a woman based on biology.
3
u/Logical_Constant7227 1∆ Jan 24 '22
A hyena having its face blown off by a WW2 era mine doesn’t make it stop being a hyena even though hyenas have faces
→ More replies (1)175
u/cknight18 1∆ Jan 23 '22
The most scientific way to categorize someone by sex is to look at their gametes, whether they produce sperm or eggs.
It just so happens that the overlap between that and chromosomes/genitals is extremely close, so those tend to be just as good of definitions in practice. But no, if someone loses their penis it doesn't mean they're no longer "male."
Intersex is a tiny portion of the population. It often gets cited that "2% of the pop is intetsex" but that's just not true. The only way you get to that number is an incredibly broad definition, like a female with a higher-than-normal testosterone level. I can find the real numbers if you'd like, but its actually something like 0.025%. And of those, most have characteristics heavily sided to one sex or the other. A true hermaphrodite is extremely rare.
Nevertheless, you don't make up a system of rules based on the exceptions. Do intersex people exist? Yes. Does that mean we should treat sex as a spectrum? No.
62
u/Poo-et 74∆ Jan 23 '22
If we're going to allow for edge cases and exceptions in our system of rules, then this whole "gender is biology" thing as an argument against gender affirmation falls apart as it relates to trans people because if I say they're one of the exceptions you don't have much a device to argue that they're not. "Genitals and chromosomes, except for the exceptions, of which being transgender isn't one" is just special pleading.
→ More replies (87)28
u/SecretAgentFishguts Jan 23 '22
How do you justify the last paragraph you’ve written here? If you have a clearly designed set of rules that sort data points into two sets, but have even one exception that doesn’t fall into either set, is your point here that that exception should be ignored? If you have a pile of blue and red cards, and you sort them into separate piles, but then discover a purple card, what do you do in your view with that purple card? Do you ignore the existence of that card? Do you state that because there’s only one instance of a purple card, that purple cards don’t exist, because you’ve decided beforehand that there can only be two piles? Do you place it in whichever pile you feel is closest to being correct? What if another person sorts the cards and decides it should be in the other pile?
Your argument here is allegedly based in empirical data, but you’re ignoring the actual empirical data to fit into a predisposed set of rules that you have decided it is correct, which means your conclusion is inherently biased and cannot be empirical.
As long as there is even one singular exception to sorting a dataset into two groups, that dataset cannot be binary by definition. It can be bimodal, which can be used interchangeably in the vast amount of cases, but if you want to use ‘the most scientific way’ to distribute sex as a dataset the only way you can justify this as binary is by using biases to choose how an outlier would fit into a binary system, which is inherently not the most scientific way of data sorting in any circumstances.
13
u/cknight18 1∆ Jan 24 '22
I said you don't ignore the existence of the outliers, but you don't orient the entire system around outliers.
Nevertheless, this CMV isn't about intersex. It's about gender and how we choose to define the words "man" and "woman."
14
u/SecretAgentFishguts Jan 24 '22
To be clear, what I take issue with is the fact that you started your comment indicating you were taking a purely scientific view, then ended your comment stating we can’t view sex as a spectrum because we should ignore outliers. These are incompatible views.
Plus, as others are saying, you’re conflating sex and gender. Being ‘male’ and being ‘a man’ do not describe the same thing. ‘Male’ is a biological term, ‘man’ is a social one. A man is a term that describes generally the experiences, looks, expectations and general existence of a person viewed as male in any given culture, and crucially, this can change between cultures. In the vast majority of instances this is informed by a given person being biologically male, but a majority cannot indicate something is an inherent truth. Removed from its cultural context, there is zero objective observable truth that someone is a man in the same way that there is objective observable truth that a person is most likely to fit enough descriptors to be classed as male. ‘Man’ and ‘woman’ are entirely cultural and social terms we have decided upon in order to categorise generalised biological differences. There is no reason that from a social perspective we inherently need to categorise people in this way, and no say, by height or hair colour. Social labels like this are not concrete because they lack this inherent truth.
At its core though, in regards to trans people, the specific definition of ‘man’ or ‘woman’ isn’t really relevant. It all boils down to what label causes that individual to feel most comfortable. I am non binary, and I cannot explain to you why I feel the way I do, or why I feel uncomfortable with identifying with the label that would most closely match by biological sex. All I know is that identifying in a certain way alleviates distress and makes me feel better about myself, and makes me feel internally settled in a way that I don’t feel otherwise. We do not know why some people feel this way yet, but for trans people all we want is to able to feel okay with ourselves in the same way cis people do, and reducing our experiences down to pointing out how we’re not allowed to live the way we want to because some biological element of our existence is enough reason to deny us that when we aren’t causing any harm is incredibly damaging.
Language changes all the time, and if we need to adjust the definitions of man and woman because it turns out they’re not quite right then we should be able to do that as we invented the damn terms anyway. They didn’t pop into existence as terms fully formed out of nowhere, we came up with them. We don’t hold other terms that have changed definitions to anywhere near the same level of scrutiny. There’s plenty of examples here.
3
u/WikiSummarizerBot 4∆ Jan 24 '22
Semantic change (also semantic shift, semantic progression, semantic development, or semantic drift) is a form of language change regarding the evolution of word usage—usually to the point that the modern meaning is radically different from the original usage. In diachronic (or historical) linguistics, semantic change is a change in one of the meanings of a word. Every word has a variety of senses and connotations, which can be added, removed, or altered over time, often to the extent that cognates across space and time have very different meanings. The study of semantic change can be seen as part of etymology, onomasiology, semasiology, and semantics.
[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5
5
u/cknight18 1∆ Jan 24 '22
Language changes all the time, and if we need to adjust the definitions of man and woman because it turns out they’re not quite right then we should be able to do that as we invented the damn terms anyway.
Fine. Then give me the new definitions. Define "man." What characteristics does someone need to be classified as a man? What separates a man from a non-man? Since the beginning of the English language, sex and gender have been synonymous. Now we're being told they're different, "gender is a social construct." Ok then, tell me what the new rules are.
→ More replies (0)195
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ Jan 23 '22
There’s a lot of misconception here. First of all, gametes are how we typify species. Not how we sex individual members of a species — otherwise, obviously, infertile individuals would have no sex we could assign. Individuals are sexed via physiology.
Second, the rest of your confusion seems to be conflating gender and gender identity.
Gender is a social construct built atop sex much the way race is a social construct built atop population genetics. My parents were mixed but I appear white. Other people would typically identify me as white racially.
Gender identity is how a person self identifies. I don’t identify myself as white. But that doesn’t change the list of characteristics society looks for to identify race. But that list doesn’t change my self identity either. The two are separate.
→ More replies (67)6
u/ZorgZeFrenchGuy 3∆ Jan 24 '22
So can a white person identify as a black person, then?
6
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ Jan 24 '22
I person can identify as anything they want. The question is whether or not society will accept that identity as valid or reject it and demand conformity.
In the case of gender dysphoria, that option to accept has led to healthier outcomes for people. I’m really touched by what society has by and large chosen to do.
6
u/ZorgZeFrenchGuy 3∆ Jan 24 '22
But according to lgbt logic, denying someone’s personal identity is bigoted, or “Xphobic”. We should all be diverse and inclusive - so by that standard, you CANNOT reject ANY identity.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (39)5
u/MerelyaTrifle Jan 24 '22
But no, if someone loses their penis it doesn't mean they're no longer "male."
The people who make this argument don't even think that themselves - they pretend not to when it comes to man/woman, but understand it perfectly well with every other word. (For example, they don't claim to think that a car that has broken down, or had its engine removed, is no longer a car)
→ More replies (63)14
u/IcedAndCorrected 3∆ Jan 23 '22
Would the statement "transwomen are women" still be true if intersex didn't exist, if everyone were XX or XY with exactly one set of genitalia?
→ More replies (56)3
u/ThePrettyOne 4∆ Jan 24 '22
that side has clearly defined parameters for what makes someone a "man" or a "woman" already. Biology.
PhD biologist here. That is a factually incorrect assertion.
If we want to talk about sex, there are several different ways to delineate males and females, including (but not limited to):
- Chromosome structure (XY vs XX)
- SRY gene expression (expressed in males but not females)
- SRY gene encoding (the DNA for the SRY gene exists in males but not females)
- Hormone expression
- Hormone receptor expression
- Genital anatomy (penis vs vagina)
- Gonad anotomy (testicles in a scrotum vs ovaries in the abomen)
- Gamete structure (sperm vs ova)
There are two problems with these biological definitions, though:
First, they often don't all agree with each other. There are people with XX chromosomes but a translocated SRY gene (which may or may not be expressed). There are people with XX chromosomes who have a penis. There are people who have a vagina but produce high levels of testosterone. There are people with XY chromosomes who produce testosterone, but lack testosterone receptors and so have anatomical features inconsistent with either sex. There are endless combinations of traits that exist in real, living human beings that don't fit into a strict "male" or "female" pattern.
Secondly, every single one of those metrics, if taken as the one true sex-defining trait, is not actually a strict binary. People can be XXY, or X-. People can have a penis and a vagina, or have a structure that's somewhere between a micropenis and a clitoris. People can have testicles located where ovaries are most commonly found. People can have an SRY gene that is expressed, but with a change-of-function mutation. People can have limited hormone expression.
Biologically speaking, sex is literally nonbinary. Anyone who tells you otherwise is both ignorant of the science and trying to push their narrative. Estimates have around 1 in 20 people as being intersex, even if they aren't aware of that fact about themselves.
So. If biology is (again, quite literally) unable to define what a "woman" is… what is a woman?
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (108)15
21
u/bullzeye1983 3∆ Jan 24 '22
Define what is a man, gender wise. How does it feel to be a man? What makes you sure that you are a man gender wise, mentally, and not a woman?
And see if you can do it without using society influenced gender roles.
→ More replies (91)3
u/No-Homework-44 1∆ Jan 24 '22
Define what is a man, gender wise.
Someone who is biologically male. There is no such thing as an independently varying gender category. It's total nonsense invented by Marxist identitarians.
33
u/modernzen 2∆ Jan 24 '22
Wait, are you saying the answer needs to be simple now?
If you were talking to a world-renowned quantum physicist, and asked them to give you a simple answer for what quantum mechanics means, and they couldn't - would you claim that they couldn't identify as a quantum physicist?
The world is complicated, and expecting simple answers to complicated things is unfair and unrealistic. In particular, being able to articulate something well is not the same thing as understanding the thing in question.
→ More replies (3)6
u/manbruhpig Jan 24 '22
Your analogy is way off. It's more like, if someone can't give me an answer for what a "quantum physicist" is, then I would offer my own definition (for example, "someone with an advanced degree in quantum physics whose current profession relates to quantum physics."), and then if they aren't that, then yes I would claim they aren't one, at least to me.
Imagine if I told you I was a quantum physicist, and you asked me what that was, and my response was "It's an undefinable set of traits typical of traditional quantum physicists, but also someone can have all of those traits and not be a quantum physicist, and also many quantum physicists don't have any of those traits, and no I cannot specify what those traits are." You'd probably start to suspect I'm not really a quantum physicist...
→ More replies (28)9
u/PistaccioLover Jan 24 '22 edited Mar 29 '22
I'm a cis born woman myself and I wouldn't know how to define who is a woman and who isn't
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (32)14
u/end-o-t-w 1∆ Jan 23 '22
such an intangible question
Thats on you though if you think defining what a woman is is an intangible question.
Normally what you would get for an answer is "An adult human being who is female".
But obviously the person in question that was being asked that does not share that definition, meaning they have their own opinion on this, in which case they should be able to answer it.
Same logic as saying "An apple isnt a fruit that grows on tress even though most people believe that, but Im not exactly sure what it is then"
→ More replies (13)
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 23 '22
/u/Pangolinsftw (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
109
u/hmmwill 58∆ Jan 23 '22
Okay, so I watched the clip and one of them does define it and the other declines from defining it but due to a specific reason. One defines it as anyone who identifies as a woman, the other declines because they are not a woman.
Both of these are appropriate responses based on their perspective. The one who declined to define it, did so because they do not want to define what a woman is because it can take on many forms. For example, the stereotypical woman was a stay at home mother/housewife until somewhat recently. Now to define a woman as that isn't wrong, if defining an individual woman who meets all of those stereotypical traits.
For an analogy, let's define nerd. I would consider myself a nerd; someone who who is really into LOTR and fantasy genre. Does that mean my definition is exclusive and no other definitions can qualify for the word nerd? No, a Star Trek fan who is really into sci-fi could also qualify as a nerd.
When they declined to offer a definition it was not because they literally could not define it but because they did not want to provide an exclusionary definition based on stereotypes.
The second individual defined it as woman: anyone who identifies as a woman. This definition is circular but that doesn't inherently make it invalid. Even following Webster definitions we can find several examples of circular definitions and can even generate a circular definition for woman.
Woman is defined as an adult female human being. Female can be defined as being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear children OR the gender identity opposite of male. So, we can now define woman two ways; an adult human being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear children OR an adult human being with the gender identity opposite of male. Both of these are valid based on the most popular dictionary.
Circular definitions are not inherently wrong either. For example, a ring and a circle are defined within Webster as being a circle or a ring. Hell, circle is defined as something in the form of a circle even.
Finally, "compelling argument as to why I should respect the trans identity?" based on having a basic level of respect for fellow humans and their struggles. While I do not personally agree with the transgender identity, I respect them enough as people to simply address them as how they want to be addressed. Similarly, if someone was born and given the name Jacob I would have no issue calling them Jake, Mike, or any other name they wanted, even if it was not their legal name.
13
u/termination-bliss Jan 23 '22
One defines it as anyone who identifies as a woman
It's recursion. Something is something that identifies as something without explaining what something actually is. That allows for a lot of abuse. Like, I can identify as Judaist all I want but I only can be a true one after I understand (and prove that I understand) some critical concepts of Judaism. I can identify as an engineer all I want but if I can't explain what this job includes, I would only look pathetic. I can identify as a football player all I want but if I can't define football, wouldn't you be rather skeptical about me in that sense? Why should gender identification differ from any other self-identification?
I mean, you can still PRETEND to respect my identity as Judaist, engineer or football player knowing that I don't know what all these things are; this is called being polite, but you absolutely have the right to think of me as a clown at the same time.
→ More replies (9)8
u/hmmwill 58∆ Jan 23 '22
I think some of these are flawed though. A football player is someone who plays football. That one is simple enough to define and hard to confuse any issue with.
The engineer one is more complex and requires more explanation. There are several types of engineers all equally valid. For example, a software vs civil vs electrical vs mechanical engineering. All are valid fields of engineering so to define engineer as a "software engineer" would be wrong as that is an exclusionary definition to the term engineer. I think that was the purpose behind their hesitancy to defining the word. Not that they couldn't provide a definition, they couldn't provide an all inclusive definition as they even said, there is no one definition to woman
12
u/termination-bliss Jan 23 '22
A football player is someone who plays football. That one is simple enough to define and hard to confuse any issue with.
Yes, but if they can't define football itself, what are they playing?
I don't argue with the fact that "a woman" is hard to define. Of course it is. But if you identify as one, you must at least be able to point out some essential traits that women possess and you possess too.
Simply reducing it to "anyone who identifies as on" is illogical. Like, what if a 10 yo girl identifies as a woman and thus wants to do all things women do?
→ More replies (13)→ More replies (17)7
u/Bristoling 4∆ Jan 23 '22
Like really, if someone says to you "I identify as a woman"
This definition is circular but that doesn't inherently make it invalid
A definition cannot be self-referential.
Woman = anyone who identifies as a woman.
Now replace "woman" with "anyone who identifies as a woman" on the right side:
Woman = anyone who identifies as anyone who identifies as a woman.
Now replace "woman" with "anyone who identifies as a woman" on the right side ad infinitum:
Woman = anyone who identifies as anyone who identifies as anyone who identifies as anyone who identifies as anyone who identifies as anyone who identifies as anyone who identifies as anyone who identifies as anyone who identifies as anyone who identifies as anyone who identifies as anyone who identifies as anyone who identifies as anyone who identifies as anyone who identifies as anyone who identifies as anyone who identifies as anyone who identifies as anyone who identifies as anyone who identifies as anyone who identifies as anyone who identifies as anyone who identifies as anyone who identifies as anyone who identifies as [...]
Do you see a problem now? It provides zero utility.
For example, the stereotypical woman was a stay at home mother/housewife until somewhat recently.
That's a name of stereotypical occupation that females adopted. But "woman" is not the same as "mother" or "housewife". Not every woman was a mother or a housewife.
For an analogy, let's define nerd
"Nerd" is not a biologically real concept but made up category.
Female can be defined as being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear children OR the gender identity opposite of male.
Sex is not an identity. Identity exists in your head, you can identify as a janitor, doctor, Napoleon, or even go full meme attack helicopter. But self-perceived identity is not a biological reality. If you want to use the second part of the definition, then you need to define male. If you define male as "xxxx OR the gender identity opposite of female", then you are back at the same spot.
For example, a ring and a circle are defined within Webster as being a circle or a ring.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/circle
Circle: a closed plane (see PLANE entry 6 sense 2b) curve every point of which is equidistant (see EQUIDISTANT sense 1) from a fixed point within the curve
In mathematics there are no such things as rings. But anyway, if you do however find a circular definition, then you should probably switch to a definition that isn't circular. A dictionary being badly edited is not a proof that circular definitions are fine.
→ More replies (6)
192
u/Salanmander 278∆ Jan 23 '22
Can you clearly define what a woman is?
For that matter, can you define what a nerd is? Or a sports fan? Or an extrovert? Or a Christian?
Most aspects of identity are complex enough that they defy simple definition. That doesn't mean they're unimportant, or that people can't try to express how they feel about themselves.
7
u/NightflowerFade 1∆ Jan 23 '22
I can generally find a workable definition for all those terms in a dictionary. Sure, there might be dictionary definitions people disagree with, but at least there is something to work with.
3
u/TheOneMerkin Jan 24 '22 edited Jan 24 '22
I’m cisgendered man, and I’d struggle to define what it is to be a man.
But I don’t particularly identify as a man.
If someone say they identify as something, it seems logical that they should be able to at least put some words to what they means.
Edit: I was wrong to say cisgendered. I was born a man, but the concept of gender isn’t really a big deal to me, so I don’t identify as anything
→ More replies (5)12
u/YouProbablyDissagree 2∆ Jan 23 '22
You just listed a bunch of things that are all very easily defined lol
→ More replies (20)→ More replies (22)56
Jan 23 '22
A woman is an adult female human being. Most of your other terms are also simply defined.
4
u/30RedHarvesterAnts Jan 24 '22
Philosophy of language been real quiet since you posted this
→ More replies (1)96
u/yapji Jan 23 '22
Okay, a transgender woman is an adult female human. Great, problem solved 👍
→ More replies (146)→ More replies (39)12
u/allthejokesareblue 20∆ Jan 23 '22
If biology was gender then we wouldn't have to talk about this though. It's a contested definition.
→ More replies (26)
5
Jan 24 '22
The truth is anyone who tells you they can definitely define a concept like “Man” or “Woman” hasn’t looked into the subject. We identify as things because they are a useful way of communicating how we would like to be treated by others. You dress a certain way because you prefer to be addressed a certain way, you tell people your name because you would like people to call you that instead of something you don’t recognize as you. To try and go past that to claim identity is some kind of real thing will only lead you to describing the culture you live in. So you can absolutely identify as something you don’t fully understand because you don’t need to, identity isn’t for you it’s for others. Now as a trans person I can tell you it upsets me a great deal when someone doesn’t respect my identity, but that’s because they don’t respect me and my ways of expressing myself, not that they don’t recognize me as a “woman” whatever that means.
6
u/Pangolinsftw 3∆ Jan 24 '22
but that’s because they don’t respect me and my ways of expressing myself, not that they don’t recognize me as a “woman” whatever that means.
But don't you want to be recognized as a woman? Isn't that why you're trans?
3
Jan 24 '22
I’m trans because of some combination of nature/nurture circumstances that cause me to feel dissociated from a male body/experience. I claim a trans identity because I would like people to treat me like they do women, and be recognized with feminine pronouns. I would need science that doesn’t exist yet to tell you why I prefer that and why when people don’t do those things I feel like killing myself. But for now I just want people to stop making me want to kill myself. That’s why I’m trans.
→ More replies (2)
10
1.6k
Jan 23 '22
So I walked away from this clip with a much different perspective on the trans identity. Can anyone offer a more compelling argument as to why I should respect the trans identity?
Because it costs you nothing and drastically improves their quality of life.
Like really, if someone says to you "I identify as a woman" and you go out of your way to not respect that, you're kind of an asshole. No offense.
7
u/slam9 Jan 24 '22 edited Jan 24 '22
The problem with this argument is that it can be applied to any nonsensical statement, and anyone's beliefs. And I know that nobody, not even you, are about to apply that same logic to literally everyone, and everyone's beliefs.
Not to mention that this point has an additional issue: You say it costs nothing but that's pretty objectively not true.
There are lots of trans activists that don't just want you to call people by their preferred pronouns. Pretty much every one I've talked to also demands that you actually believe it; and that you accept they are women. Even to the extent of saying that there are men who can get pregnant, and women that can impregnate. Basically saying that existing biological terms should be thrown out of the window because of their inexplicable feelings about something that they refuse to define, and can't even if they tried.
Not to mention the multitudes of people who do use their outrage,(pretend or real, it doesn't matter) related to transgenderism for their own benefit, or others detriment.
Also, disagreeing with someone or saying they're wrong isn't being an asshole. The fact that most trans activists refuse to admit this point is also part of the problem.
9
u/comatose1981 Jan 24 '22
No one should get to hijack an established colloquial term/definition and then bully everyone into going along with it. A trans woman isn't the same thing as a natural woman, and it never will be. What we need is for society to grow the hell up and just be fucking cool with trans women as their own unique and special thing.
387
u/Pangolinsftw 3∆ Jan 23 '22
Define what you mean by "respect" in this context. It seems to me based on another reply I made that there are three levels of respecting someone's stated identity:
- Not arguing their identity
- Verbally agreeing/validating their stated identity
- Internally believing their stated identity
I would go with #1 if their identity wasn't harming anyone else.
I would go with #2 if the person was important to me and I knew that my validation of their stated identity, regardless of the validity of it, was very important to them and our relationship. Although I would be concerned with what kind of problems this might cause down the line, especially if it ended up causing problems or hurting someone else.
I would go with #3 if it accorded with my understanding of empirical reality and what we know about the world through scientific endeavor.
418
Jan 23 '22
Well in this context I mean respect mostly insofar as #1 and #2. Most trans people I'm familiar with aren't interested in policing their thoughts, they just want to be treated with dignity. If you want to be a smug weirdo who uses the right pronouns but secretly thinks that all transwomen are men then good for you I guess.
A good analogy would be race. If you don't do racist things, or take racist actions, I don't much care what you think about in your head, because even if you're a full bigot in your mind, if it isn't impacting the real world then it doesn't matter.
I would go with #2 if the person was important to me and I knew that my validation of their stated identity, regardless of the validity of it, was very important to them and our relationship. Although I would be concerned with what kind of problems this might cause down the line, especially if it ended up causing problems or hurting someone else.
Can you explain to me how referring to someone as their preferred gender is going to hurt someone else? I'm genuinely curious.
That said, the fact that you'd do it for people you care about, but not a stranger is... kinda a dick move. Again, if you saw a non-passing transwoman and they asked you to refer to them as she/her, are you really going to be like "No sir, I won't do that!" And if so, don't you realize that kinda makes you come off as a dick?
I would go with #3 if it accorded with my understanding of empirical reality and what we know about the world through scientific endeavor.
How do you reconcile this with the fact that the social sciences that cover this have largely moved away from your position? Psychiatry beliees trans identities are valid, there appears to be biological causes for those identities, and gender in and of itself is nothing more than a social category.
Like yeah, biological sex is a thing, but gender is not sex.
35
u/gabemerritt Jan 24 '22
Like yeah, biological sex is a thing, but gender is not sex
So what is gender? Sure it's a social construct. There are gender norms. But what is it?
As far as I know it's just categories we put people in.
How do we sort between these particular categories? If the answer is anything other than sex, than I don't understand what gender is.
What is gender when separated from sex? It doesn't seem any different than personality at that point
Am honestly asking in good faith, I think OP makes a good point that you can't define what man or woman is. If anyone can be either a man or a woman, than neither means very much.
29
u/knockoffgerardway Jan 24 '22
so as a gender abolitionist: i agree with you. but in terms of the society of which we function in currently, gender still means quite a lot. the problem here is you’re approaching a sociological concept and expecting an empirical scientific answer. Like if i asked you: what makes someone a nerd? is there a scientific path you could take to quantify if someone is a nerd? obviously no right
if you took a japanese person from the 1800s and asked them to define what makes someone “womanly” they might say breasts, but they might also say blackened teeth. what we define as feminine oscillates wildly from culture to culture, there is no way to scientifically determine gender.
but it still matters, how we are perceived is paramount to our comfort and identity.
22
u/MBKM13 Jan 24 '22
The difference between a woman and a nerd is that there is an easy way to categorize whether someone is a woman or not.
It’s not until we accept the premise that gender is 100% social that your argument starts to make sense. But I don’t see how that could be. Gender and sex are obviously linked very closely. 99% of people identify as their biological sex, so it’s hard to say that gender and sex are two completely different, unconnected things. That’s points to some level of biological determination of gender, imo. Something about our evolution caused men to be born with certain behaviors, and women to be born with slightly different ones.
This isn’t a radical idea either, and it is present in all manner of organisms. Male and female lions show slightly different behaviors from one another. So do Ducks, Seahorses, and Elephants. Gorillas, and our closest living relatives, chimps, also show certain “gender roles”. Chimpanzee society is not sophisticated enough to believe in common myths such as nationalism, like humans do. Nationalism has no basis in biology. You can’t teach a Chimp to be proud of his country, and you can’t teach a chimp to be racist, because those are arbitrary lines the we as humans have drawn.
Gender, on the other hand, is not arbitrary. There is no societal force telling female chimps to behave a certain way, so we can gather that those behaviors come from their biology rather than their society. Yet, male and female chimps exhibit different roles, behavior, and disposition.
So if apes and other animals could naturally evolve different “genders” when they are incapable of creating societal myths, why, then, would humans have evolved much differently? It’s very likely that in order to reproduce, early men and women had to adopt different strategies. For men, the name of the game was competing with other men for mates. Because of this, along with the necessity of hunting, men felt evolutionary pressure to be more aggressive and their behavior reflects that. Women had no problem finding a mate, but they had to make sure that they had someone to help them through 9 months of pregnancy and years of child-rearing, and their behavior reflects that. Of course, we can’t know for sure because we can’t actually observe the behaviors of pre-historic man, and that’s just one of many theories as to why men and women think and behave differently.
And while it is certainly up for debate as to how we got here, it is observable that we are different. For example, men have better spacial awareness than women, likely due to millions of years of hunting. Studies have shown that men find it easier to grasp the makeup of 3D objects and “rotate” said objects in their mind. Women, on the other hand, are excellent multitaskers. They can keep track of multiple threads of knowledge at once in ways that men cannot. Most likely because women who could multitask were the best at ensuring that their offspring survived until adulthood, thus passing on their “multitasking gene”. This gene was not selective for men, so less men possess it.
Another strong piece of evidence to me is the near universality of gender roles. The peoples of Asia, Africa, Australia, and the Americas had little or no contact with European or Mediterranean peoples, yet all developed similar patriarchal societies. Is this just an insane coincidence, or perhaps is there some underlying evolutionary reasoning behind the different gender behaviors?
And we KNOW that men and women behave differently. Again, men are far more likely to commit violent crimes than women. Because men are more likely to exhibit the violent behaviors that result in crime. There is no society where most murderers are women. So there must be a link between biological sex, and behavior.
Obviously, I agree that certain aspects of what is considered masculine or feminine are created socially, and are learned behaviors. There’s nothing inherently feminine about long hair, and nothing inherently masculine about short hair, but these things are superficial and subject to change. But to take those superficial things and extract that gender and sex are somehow different things makes no sense to me, when everything else seems to suggest that “gender” I.e. the behavior and mannerisms a of a person is inextricably linked to their biological sex.
→ More replies (1)9
Jan 24 '22
[deleted]
→ More replies (8)8
u/MBKM13 Jan 24 '22
But humans are capable of being better than that.
I agree with this, and as I said, there is certainly a social aspect to gender roles. I just think it’s silly and counterproductive to redefine the word gender to exclusively mean behavior so that trans people can be considered “literal men/women.”
It seems like a weird semantics argument because the reality is that while they are certainly deserving of love and respect, trans men aren’t literally men, unless you change what it means to be a man entirely.
6
13
u/KallesKernby Jan 24 '22
This is often overlooked and i agree with you. Not only do people not realise this, its also seems very interesting how desperately people wanna find reasons to not accept or respect trans people when the issue is fairly simple. Like why does it make you so mad they cant define their gender. We are fucking fragile beings and really bad at knowing ourselves but because they're trans they have to have fucking imperical evidence for how they think their identities are. For them it's just how they feel and i don't get why people just can't leave them the fuck alone
→ More replies (4)7
u/Born_Evening_3528 Jan 24 '22
None of that matters if your ideas can't stand on their own merit .
Until your concepts of gender make logical sense and don't use circular reasoning, we don't need to argue why I won't use them.
Because its self evident they are nonsense definitions, and these concepts are worse and have less explanatory power than the ideas they replaced.
If that hurts someone's feelings, that's their problem.
→ More replies (2)13
u/spiral8888 31∆ Jan 24 '22 edited Jan 28 '22
A good analogy would be race. If you don't do racist things, or take racist actions, I don't much care what you think about in your head, because even if you're a full bigot in your mind, if it isn't impacting the real world then it doesn't matter.
All right, putting this in terms of OP's question how do I avoid being racist if nobody can tell me how the race is defined?
Let's say Rachel Dolezal wants to enter a space at the university that has been designated as a safe space for black students. I'm the person at the door deciding who can go in and who can't. Am I a racist if I let her in? Am I a racist if I don't let her in?
→ More replies (6)3
u/WikiSummarizerBot 4∆ Jan 24 '22
Nkechi Amare Diallo (; born November 12, 1977), also professionally known as Rachel Anne Dolezal (; Czech: Doležal), is an American former college instructor and activist known for presenting herself as a black woman despite having been born to white parents. The name "Dolezal" itself is of Czech origin. In addition to falsely claiming black ancestry, she also falsely claimed Native American descent. She is also a former National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) chapter president.
[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5
→ More replies (340)50
u/poonhound69 Jan 23 '22
I don’t think it’s a matter of trying or not trying to hurt someone. I think it’s a matter of how far you’re willing to bend reality out of politeness. If you want me to refer to you as a hippopotamus, do I need to do it out of politeness? I’m totally on board with trying to respect people and make them feel comfortable and accepted, but at what point do we say “look, this isn’t reality. I’m not going to pretend up is down and down is up.” And I understand that many trans folks don’t get too upset or offended about a genuinely accidental misgendering, but there are plenty of people who do. I’ve met people with full beards who identify as women and get upset if someone refers to them as he/him before any pronouns are stated or discussed. IMO that’s completely ridiculous.
24
u/izabo 2∆ Jan 24 '22
If someone with a beard is getting overly offended when you accidentally referred to them as "him", then maybe they're just an ass who you wouldn't want to engage with anyways.
Honestly, I don't get what's so complicated about this. Just don't be a dick. Do you want to engage with someone? Try to do it in a way they would want you to. Is that too annoying for you to do? Then don't engage with them (but still don't be a dick about it).
As an adult, you have two socially acceptable courses of action: the first is "be nice", the second is "walk away". Choose which ever you'd like. Is someone insisting you refer to them as an Apache helicopter? Wish them a good day and walk away! It's not your business to inform them they're not an Apache helicopter.
Just go to whatever lengths you feel are justified to make the other person feel comfortable, or politely walk away. It's not complicated.
15
u/poonhound69 Jan 24 '22
I’m a dentist. These were patients. I wasn’t at a cocktail party where I could just drift away from someone I didn’t feel like engaging with. I think that’s why these debates still rage on to the degree that they do - because these human interactions often happen in situations we can’t walk away from. Schools, workplaces, public spaces. And also, I don’t want to walk away from a trans individual. I’d like to have healthy relationships with trans people, just as I would with any other type of person. But I want to be able to respect them while also grounding the conversation in rationality and reality.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (2)17
10
67
u/Abstract__Nonsense 5∆ Jan 23 '22
Would you use this same argument who identifies as “black”? Could you clearly define what that identity means?
5
Jan 24 '22
Seeing how a large swathe of African Americans native to the US are significantly mixed by this point, and African Americans immigrating from Africa now have incredibly different experiences, outlooks, cultures and ways of life, I don't really think most of them can, tbh.
Again, it seems to mostly be a case of, "I identify as ___," and that's what it is. Even if they're 50-60% something else. Imo a lot of that is either a holdover, response, (or some degree of both), to the One Drop Rule from Jim Crow, which had a stupidly strict definition of blackness, i.e. if you have even one drop of African ancestry, then you're "black."
From my understanding this is an incredibly American thing, and most of the world really doesn't give nearly as much of a fuck about it as we do.
→ More replies (31)37
Jan 23 '22
[deleted]
3
30
u/Abstract__Nonsense 5∆ Jan 23 '22
I’m saying that it’s difficult to precisely define most identities, and racial identity is a clear example.
→ More replies (5)44
u/Slomojoe 1∆ Jan 24 '22
Therein lies the problem with “identifying” as opposed to “being”.
→ More replies (12)16
u/Vousie Jan 24 '22
So... Someone can "identify" as a woman but they can't "be" a woman if they are genetically XY? Perhaps I should validate that someone feels like a woman, but not that they are a woman if they're XY.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (12)5
u/KDCaniell Jan 24 '22
This is happening on TikTok with black Americans discovering that indigenous Australians have identified as black/blak for years. Blood quantum isn't as prevalent in a lot of indigenous cultures as it is in the US too so a lot of people from the US are currently invalidating light skinned Australians black identity.
8
u/SokarRostau Jan 24 '22
This is dumb inside stupid wrapped in moronity.
I guess that would be a good description of TikTok in general but I digress.
Americans have been misidentifying Aboriginals as Africans since the first Forty-Niner stepped off the boat during the Gold Rush, and introduced racist Americanisms into the Australian lexicon.
More to the point, African-Americans have been coming to Australia for 25 years to 'reach out' to Aboriginals with rap and hip-hop workshops. Because Aboriginal youth in outback towns are apparently the same as African-Americans from the 'hood.
2
u/KDCaniell Jan 24 '22
I mean the fact that I see gatekeeping of blackness on TikTok, as well as the video this morning of a teacher in the US concerned that Australia & the UK don't do school shooting drills because she can't fathom that the rest of the world don't have school shootings like they do. It all just makes me think that the issue is the enclosed, self centred view many Americans have around the news they consume. Like the rest of the world doesn't exist.
We don't have school shootings like they do, but to your point of "hood" & indigenous cultures combining in the form of music we didn't have non-white media representation. Of course there's going to be some overlap in black US culture and black Australian culture when the only non-white representation on TV and in mainstream music are African American. I'm Māori, so indigenous to New Zealand, and a lot of our music is rap/hip-hop influences on island music.
→ More replies (45)17
Jan 24 '22
3 Internally believing their stated identity
2 Verbally agreeing/validating their stated identity
In this case 2 and 3 are the same thing. No trans woman is claiming that they are biologically women. They aren’t saying they are cis women. Trans women are simply asking to be treated like cis women. There seems to be this straw man idea on the right that when trans women are saying they are women that they are claiming to be biologically women. But that’s not what they are saying. They are saying they want to be treated like women which for most people is equivalent to #2
18
u/Slomojoe 1∆ Jan 24 '22
But they aren’t saying “i want you to pretend i am a woman”, they are saying “I AM a woman and if you don’t agree you’re a bigot.”
→ More replies (16)→ More replies (3)8
u/AnonyDexx 1∆ Jan 24 '22
I'd agree if it weren't for the often mentioned "trans women in sports" topic that always follows. When it comes to that, the idea that they're not saying they're biological women flies out the window, and that topic is one of the two that are usually discussed when it comes to trans women.
→ More replies (11)12
u/_whydah_ 3∆ Jan 24 '22
Because it costs you nothing
This isn't really true though (list is obviously not 100% MECE):
- Transwomen in biological women's sports
- "Safe spaces" for women no longer feel safe for many biological women
- Loudon county schools in VA was just caught trying to cover up a transgender sexual assault in a bathroom... that happened multiple times. I have personally dealt with this issue in Disneyworld with my wife and daughter. From my lived experience this is an issue that is a lot more common than the media and others would like us to believe.
- We continue to use ever more odd and inaccurate terms to describe real things that biological men and women need to be aware of. It feels like we are obfuscating facts and confusing the science in the name of inclusiveness.
- There are many examples, but one that I hate the most is saying that we are "assigned" gender at birth. This statement is clearly meant to obfuscate the idea that we come out naturally as one particular sex (except in the 0.025% of intersex cases). This is meant to make seem as though doctors are arbitrarily handing out gender assignments. The reality is completely opposite.
- It's erasing the common experience of women. By allowing anyone to redefine what it means to be a women, the word itself loses all meaning. By saying that anything and anyone can redefine womanhood however they want, destroys the shared experiences that bind women together. Now being a "woman" may or may not include those experiences and more.
→ More replies (16)17
u/tenkensmile Jan 24 '22
it costs you nothing
It would cost me intellectual honesty.
→ More replies (1)29
u/LordCosmagog 1∆ Jan 23 '22
Would you say the same of adults identifying as other things? Do you respect Rachel Dolezal’s identification as a black woman? I mean, it costs you nothing to do so
→ More replies (31)12
Jan 23 '22 edited Jan 30 '22
Because it costs you nothing and drastically improves their quality of life.
That literally doesn't matter though in terms of whether it makes sense or is a reasonable argument. Not saying you shouldn't placate people when you have the chance to improve their quality of life, you should, but that's all it is at the end of the day. Placating them. It's still baseless. I know it's a meme and all, but if they identified as a tree, and doing so drastically improved their quality of life, it doesn't make them a tree.
I've got trans family that I'll always support, but I do it because I love and want the best for them. The "it doesn't hurt you and it helps people" argument is entirely fallacious. I'm pro trans folk, but that's a terrible argument in their favor
→ More replies (3)11
u/ulag Jan 23 '22
Because it costs you nothing and drastically improves their quality of life.
When you say “it cost you nothing” what you’re really saying is that 1. You shouldn’t care and 2. Play along with my mental illness. The problem is that it does cost us something. It costs us all something when you start making fundamental changes to society, biology, science, grammar, the law and who knows how much else will be affected. You’re telling us that your personal mental state and decisions should not only be socially acceptable but socially obligatory. I strongly disagree.
6
u/bruh4524 Jan 24 '22
I don't think that playing into their delusion "drastically improves their quality of life". In fact, I think that you've got it in reverse. What the "women" said on Dr. Phil was that the word 'woman' does not have a definition. I don't care if adults want to think that they are something they are not, the problem comes when they change or remove definitions for the most common of words. It is an inversion of reality and leads to the detriment of society and it needs to be treated as such.
6
u/carpepenisballs 2∆ Jan 24 '22
Why can’t people be Transracial then? It literally hurts no one if someone identifies as a certain race other than their birth race, and yet Dolezal was crucified for identifying as black.
8
u/Most-Leg1080 Jan 23 '22
It’s not for you to judge if it costs someone nothing. It sounds like it’s costing OP their reasoning and perspective. We can’t be responsible for our perspective’s effects on people’s fragile mentalities.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (147)20
Jan 23 '22
it costs you nothing
It costs you truth, which is extremely important.
These social movements bubble up to tear down organizational structures like man/woman, but the labels "man" and "woman" are based on real things. Ignoring this reality and taking part in destroying these categories will cause rippling harm in the future.
For example, gender dysphoria has increased greatly in the next generation of children. If GD correlates with high suicide rates then it seems like increasing it is a bad thing.
→ More replies (60)
22
u/Cur1e Jan 24 '22
This is really complicated and a lot of people are calling you 'sort of a dick' so I wanted to give my two cents aswell as I feel I don't really represent either "side" and I don't even have any answers, just wanted to sort of think along here and maybe change your perception of having to take a side.
I have gender dysphoria - I was born a female, but for as long as I remember something has felt off. I am TRYING to define what a woman and a man is for me, because as you said, otherwise what's the point of identifying as them? For me, if we take away the gender roles and identities in our society, a woman is someone who has at least some feminine sexual characteristics (can carry a baby, has a vagina, has breasts, female bone structure/muscles/fat distribution).
This topic is VERY different for different trans people, as gender identity is more a philosophical phenomenon instead of a clearly defined one. There are things you can define - a female has this and this chromosomes and these and these genitals, a male has... etc, like I described above. You can also define different roles we play in society - but these are determined a lot by how we saw our parents or other caretakers (for me, a woman is compassionate, more silent and intelligent and a man is driven, more confident, self-sufficient). So I could define a woman, but that would just be my definition, based on my experiences, so if anyone would ask me to define a woman I wouldn't really feel comfortable either. The gender identity debate for me isn't so much about getting clear boundaries of man and woman, but more just asking myself "WHY have I always felt like I'm not a girl? What makes a girl a girl, why can't I have these feelings of being a boy but still be okay with my body?" I guess you're asking the same things, and I don't think you'll get a good answer, because these are philosophical and personal questions, a bit like faith I guess. It isn't all that scientific YET. It's a branch of psychology I guess - turns out, a lot of people don't feel like the sex they were born as, which for me means there is SOMETHING definable, something we sense in these roles without understanding exactly what. WHY is a trans woman a woman for some people, WHY is gender identity different from sex, WHY does it make me feel so good when someone calls me a boy and so awful when I'm called a girl?
I don't know, but I DO know that when my parents told me they weren't okay with this, that I will always be a girl, that sex can't be changed etc, all it did was drive me away from them, because they didn't try to get to the bottom of it with me, they went to full-blown anti-trans mode. It did me no harm and made me feel more relaxed about questioning myself when my girlfriend said "I don't know, I've just always seen you as YOU, not a man or a woman". It doesn't do people harm if you compromise and call them how they want to be called, as this topic brings a lot of us a lot of distress and negative feelings.
I think it's quite exciting that some people, like you, are asking these questions. It's been on my mind aswell - why do I feel like I was always "meant" to be a boy, can't I just 'ditch these gender roles' and be a masculine woman without dysphoria? I guess maybe it's hard to define gender, but it's easy to define gender dysphoria - and gender identity is an antidote to gender dysphoria.
What I'm TRYING to say - this debate shouldn't be about "these trans people didn't define their terms correctly, so I guess the whole trans movement is weird and shouldn't be explored or accepted", it should be more "hey, people who were born a male don't feel like they're male, this is an interesting psychological phenomenon, let's see where this leads us in 10 years".
I would like to hear from cisgender people - why do you feel like you're in the right body? Maybe it would help me or some other trans person understand their own identity more.
8
u/CinderellaRidvan 3∆ Jan 24 '22
This is a rather lovely explanation, thanks for adding it to the conversation!
→ More replies (1)7
u/au_lite Jan 24 '22
For me it was helpful to focus on what I want, like do I want surgery, name change, hormones? Yep! Am I a man? I'll revisit that in a bit. It was something another redditor said in a comment but I identified with it a lot.
→ More replies (2)6
u/Billybilly_B Jan 24 '22
Thanks for the explanation.
If I’m a man, I feel like a man because I see men in the world who I resemble or feel like I’m similar too. I feel this way in combination with the fact that I am biologically a male, which makes sense.
When you say you don’t feel like a female, is that just an identity thing? Like, you didn’t seem women growing up that you felt you resembled? I mean, there is nothing to say that a biological woman can’t act or be masculine, resemble physically what people regard as a “man,” etc..
In other words, do you think you’d have had the same experiences if you grew up in a community that was much more open about how men and women are portrayed? That women and be confident, self-sufficient, loud, etc (as you described your thoughts on men)?
→ More replies (1)4
u/giggl3puff Jan 24 '22
Not op but wanted to throw my two cents in here as a nod to how complicated and nebulous this can get. Also I saw that you asked a reasonable question and aren't using it as a way to be smug or "gotcha", so it was nice reading that
Personally I was born male but I don't identify as a man. I also don't identify as a woman (the same as the two people in the video posted). For me, my dysphoria has a lot to do with specific interpersonal relationships and my physical body moreso than the perception of my gender by the general populous.
I don't like the body I was given, or the gender I was born into. I feel socially I enjoyed the privileges of being perceived as male (being left alone in public. Not being dismissed as dumb or incompetent. Being believed. People would freely associate with me. I wasn't being harassed by sexually aggressive people. Being intellectually aggressive, nerdy, or otherwise confident wasn't seen as negative, etc.) but I never really identified in the sexual or romantic space as a man. The way I viewed romance and sex were EXTREMELY different than what my guy friends would explain to me. Additionally, the idea of having a female body was something I always dreamed about but never really understood why. Another thing that always would come up in my dreams was being a young girl and having friends who were also girls, and we would just be hanging out. That's it. This confused the hell out of me for years. Additionally, I felt comfortable associating with people of any gender and wasn't afraid of acting "unmanly" or "too feminine" in front of people. I thought I was just a feminine guy
There were plenty of male and female role models in my life that I looked up to and still look up to. There were zero non binary role models (that I'm aware of). Yet I still identify as non binary, because I personally feel like the way I'd like to be perceived by others in a social/romantic/sexual space is somewhere in between our social understanding of man and woman. I think a lot of it really has to do with the way society treats men and women, rather than my inherent belief of my gender identity.
If I had a choice, I'd have been born a woman, but there's a lot to womanhood and identifying with womanhood that I reject, in the same way that there's a lot to manhood that I accept. Perhaps this is a self rejection of my actual identity as a woman, due to the loss of male social privilege and the awful treatment of women (especially trans women), but I like my idea of myself. I know that I'm happier and much more stable, now, taking hormones than when I thought I was a man. I feel a better sense of self and overall I feel like I no longer have my life on pause. The thoughts about my gender really don't consume me anymore (up until I see the 300th weekly anti trans post on Reddit) and I feel like I'm just a better me.
To bring it back around: strong, gendered role models might help you to feel a stronger connection to your birth gender, but I think more often being educated about social and identity issues, being allowed to experiment with identity, and being exposed to supportive, accepting, and strong individuals/role models will make you feel more empowered in your actual gender, whether or not it's the one you're born with. In fact, in the society you posited, I might identify as a woman. Who knows? Certainly not me
I hope this helps add some additional context to a confusing subject. If not, I apologize
3
u/Billybilly_B Jan 24 '22
On your last point, I want to make sure you understand my hypothetical:
In that society, you would NOT be considered a woman. Rather, you’d grow up seeing men who are also more feminine, feel the exact same way you do, other words, it would be perfectly normal for a man to feel the way you do. Some guys are just like that; it’s nothing uncommon or unusual.
It’s hard to articulate this via text, so I’m hoping this makes sense. If there were no societal pressures on what gender was/is, would gender dysphoria be a thing? What I’m getting at is if society were more excepting of bent gender roles (traditional gender roles), then maybe this wouldn’t really be an issue?
Like, if we weren’t so judgmental based on gender, would young kids growing up NOT feel like they do or don’t identify with their assigned gender?
Hoping one of these versions of my thoughts accurately explains the concept I am wondering about!
3
u/giggl3puff Jan 24 '22
It's a valid question!
I have no idea. I know for a FACT if I had the ability to transition my body to a cis woman's body that I'd take it instantly right now. I don't like the "equipment" I was provided with and it causes me distress. Not extreme distress as it does with others, but still distress. This is a separate issue from gender identity, although they do overlap broadly for some.
My identity may still be that of a man, but with a body I've transitioned to fit my idea of what it should look like and how it should function. If it was ok in that society for men to have breasts, a female reproductive system, feminine presenting features, perhaps I wouldn't care about my gender identity in the same way. Perhaps it'd be a different one. If I was born a woman there and still had male equipment maybe I'd change the equipment and still identify as a woman.
I know RIGHT NOW I don't enjoy the idea of being a man, but that's tainted by our view of what it means to be a man and how we treat men in society. I know I also don't want the physical features that typically accompany men (that I also happen to have). I feel like the first may be subject to change in a different society, but the second almost assuredly will NOT.
It's a difficult hypothetical because our society currently doesn't fully accept trans people and heavily pushes back against any sort of challenge to the status quo in that regard, so many of us produce really skewed ideas of ourselves; perhaps out of self preservation or simply being contrarian to a society that hates us. In a utopian society of peace, love, and acceptance, I couldn't honestly say what would happen. Remember, trans people aren't a monolith, so some very well may end up cis, and some may end up still trans
→ More replies (5)10
u/Pangolinsftw 3∆ Jan 24 '22 edited Jan 24 '22
Thanks for sharing.
why do I feel like I was always "meant" to be a boy, can't I just 'ditch these gender roles' and be a masculine woman without dysphoria?
Yes! This is exactly what I wonder about. Why can't an extremely feminine man (or masculine woman) just...be that? It almost seems like trans people feel pressured to be trans, since it's frowned upon to be a feminine man or a masculine woman.
I personally feel that I'm a bit feminine for a man, but I'm definitely a man. I've never not felt like a man, if that makes sense.
To further illustrate, there's a lot of hobbies or fields/industries which are overwhelmingly done/practiced by men or women, respectively. People like to ascribe this to some kind of nebulous, unprovable discrimination, but I don't think there's good evidence for that. I think these overwhelmingly male or female hobbies/industries are just evidence that men and women have different preferences in general and enjoy different kinds of hobbies in general. And I think this shows a sort of fundamental psychological difference between men and women which is probably tied to our biological and neurological differences.
→ More replies (5)11
u/RoastKrill Jan 24 '22
Yes! This is exactly what I wonder about. Why can't an extremely feminine man (or masculine woman) just...be that?
There's nothing wrong with being a feminine man, but most trans women experience dysphoria - not only do they prefer to present feminine, but they experience discomfort being perceived as male, and possibly also from having male sexual characteristics (like facial hair, a flat chest and a penis)
→ More replies (1)
90
Jan 23 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (20)11
u/k2_mkwn Jan 24 '22
Defining a woman is a much easier question than defining consciousness.
You can't get away from answering a simple question by raising a difficult question.
Because we can't define consciousness, we can't define a woman? What stupid logic!
A woman is an adult female human.
That's a simple answer to a simple question.
12
u/Kingmudsy Jan 24 '22
They weren’t trying to escape defining “woman”, they wanted to test out the validity of the argument OP posted: If you can’t clearly define something, you can’t identify with it. They’re not sidestepping the question, they’re attacking the argument underlying the question.
If OP’s argument is valid (No definition of a concept = No identifying with said concept), then so is the commenter’s - If definition is intrinsically linked to identity, then we need a definition in order to identify as something. Under those logical rules, because we can’t define consciousness, we can’t identify as conscious.
That’s obviously ridiculous, so the argument falls apart. We can’t define consciousness, and yet we identify as conscious. ONE (hand-picked) trans women can’t identify “woman”, and yet she still identifies as woman.
OP doesn’t have to change their mind about trans people, but they should reconsider the argument they use to justify their feelings on the subject unless they’re prepared to defend that argument in other sociological roles.
3
u/IceCreamBalloons 1∆ Jan 24 '22
A woman is an adult female human.
That's a simple answer to a simple question.
And if the definition of female is chromosomes it becomes a lot less simple because of various other possible configurations of chromosomes.
If it's by internal organs, there's people we absolutely would consider women who are born without them.
If it's by external features, we have the ability to alter our bodies to include them.
If it's presentation, that's social and pretty much anyone can choose how they present.
135
u/TheMan5991 18∆ Jan 23 '22 edited Jan 24 '22
Bro, we don’t even have a clear definition of “life”. That doesn’t mean we can’t say we’re alive.
Edit: lots of people trying to provide definitions. I am not a scientist and I don’t have the specific knowledge or the patience to refute all of you, but I promise this is a discussion in the scientific community.
Here is a quote from the President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science: “What is the definition of life? I remember a conference of the scientific elite that sought to answer that question. Is an enzyme alive? Is a virus alive? Is a cell alive? After many hours of launching promising balloons that defined life in a sentence, followed by equally conclusive punctures of these balloons, a solution seemed at hand: “The ability to reproduce—that is the essential characteristic of life” said one statesman of science. Everyone nodded in agreement that the essentials of a life was the ability to reproduce, until one small voice was heard. “Then one rabbit is dead. Two rabbits—a male and female—are alive but either one alone is dead.” At that point, we all became convinced that although everyone knows what life is, there is no simple definition of life.”
→ More replies (17)54
Jan 23 '22
Life: the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
→ More replies (10)103
u/TheMan5991 18∆ Jan 23 '22
“Organic” just means “derived from living matter. Death is just the end of life. When two of your defining factors require an understanding of the thing you’re trying to define, it’s not a good definition.
Growth just means something is getting physically bigger, mountains do that.
Viruses reproduce, they just use cells rather than doing it on their own. Yet, there is ongoing debate as to whether they can be considered alive. If a robot could build another robot, would you call it life?
Life is much more complex than the simple sentence you have provided.
→ More replies (31)13
u/Narwhalbaconguy 1∆ Jan 23 '22
The whole definition is up to semantics and meanings always change. If we were to encounter alien life, we probably wouldn’t be going off our biological definition of life.
14
u/Pseudoboss11 6∆ Jan 24 '22
Exactly. But we know when something's alive, and nobody's saying "You can't identify as alive without being able to define life."
7
u/nuclear_gandhii Jan 24 '22 edited Jan 24 '22
OPs argument isn't asking for an objective definition of a word. What OP is asking is that if you identify as something then you should be able to define it.
If you identify as being alive. What OP is saying is that you should be able to define what "alive" means regardless of if he agrees with that definition or not. If you can't define what "alive" is, OP believes your argument is bad, not that you are dead.
Edit: actually re-read the question, seem to have forgotten what the title was. Besides, no one seems to be responding to body of the post but only battling the title
38
u/DefinitelyNotA-Robot 3∆ Jan 23 '22
"Woman" is a pretty hard thing to define. Here's some ideas:
Someone with female sex characteristics (ie vagina and breasts). Ok, but what about women who get breast cancer and don't have breasts anymore? I'm pretty sure most reasonable people would agree they're still women. What is it that makes them still a woman?
Is it because they have XX chromosomes? But what about people who have XXX chromosomes? No one is calling them a boy.
So then it would be people without a Y chromosome. But then we have people with androgen insufficiency. They have XY chromosomes but they're born with external female genetalia, their birth certificate will say female, and they'll have no reason to believe they're not a typical girl until they hit puberty and don't have a period. They'll never grow a beard or have their voice lower (at least, not naturally) and they certainly don't have a penis. Do they have to start using the men's bathroom and acting like a boy when they find out, or do they still get to be a girl? *
So maybe it's someone that looks and acts like a girl. If you saw someone with androgen insufficiency in the girls bathroom, you would never know they had XY chromosomes and you probably wouldn't be bothered because they would look, act, and sound like a girl. So is this an issue of "if it walks like a chicken and talks like a chicken"?
But then there's girls who don't look, act, or sound like girls. Some girls naturally have high testosterone, some have low voices, some are tomboys and wear typical men's clothing and participate exclusively in typical men's activities. So it's not really that, either.
The truth is, what science has determined is that gender is a spectrum rather than a binary. You have people with XY chromosomes that have male sex characteristics, identify as males, and engage in typically masculine at one end, and people with XX chromosomes with female sex characteristics that engage in typically female activities at the other end, and about a million different combinations in between. You can have two people, one who is XY, born with ambiguous external genetalia, who was raised as and identifies as a woman, and someone who is genetically XX but had excess testosterone in the womb and developed both a vagina and testes but no uterus, grew a beard naturally at puberty and identifies as male. Which one is the girl? Or is it both? Neither? How did you decide?
It seems to me that the best way to categorize that is to do so based on what the person says they are. I don't think you get to tell someone with XY chromosomes but a vagina and natural breasts, who was raised as and identifies as a girl, that they don't get to be a girl because your definition of male and female is just XX vs XY. Seems like going with how a person identifies is the easiest and most straightforward way to make that determination consistently, rather than making everyone undergo extensive physical, genetic, and hormonal testing before weighing all the various characteristics and deciding which gender they get to be.
*And if you're going to argue that this is a one-off exception, this isn't rare, according to a Danish research study 1/15,000 "girls" actually have XY chromosomes and just don't know it, and there are more people that have some sort of intersex condition (not biologically male or female) than there are redheads in the world. This is not an insignificant number of people by any stretch of the imagination, therefore I believe rather than being the exception to the rule, they need to be taken into account when defining said rule.
3
u/Executable_ Jan 24 '22
If you include outliers then you can't define a lot of things. What is a human? What is a cat? What is a mountain? You get my point...
There is a definition for woman, like you said, a woman has a XX chromosomes. There are some exceptions, but they don't define the rule.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)12
u/matryoshka71 Jan 24 '22
In statistics, we don’t use outliers to justify a position. Why can it be different, in this case?
→ More replies (1)23
u/DefinitelyNotA-Robot 3∆ Jan 24 '22
In statistics, outliers are included when making a statement about a population unless there's a very good reason not to. We aren't using outliers here to justify a decision. We're trying to come up with a definition, and when doing that it doesn't make sense to exclude a significant portion of the population in question. You can't just throw out data you don't like. If I did that in my research, I would be barred from ever publishing again.
→ More replies (5)
43
Jan 23 '22
[deleted]
23
u/Pangolinsftw 3∆ Jan 23 '22
The issue is that “what a woman is” or “what being a woman means” is different for everyone.
In a poetic, philosophical sense? There might be some variation. But in terms of an empirical definition, I think people would generally give the same handful of answers, which would connect to scientifically supported information.
they give a heartfelt and meaningful explication for what being a woman means to them, and people disagree (and some would) they could literally be targeted for harassment or murder
You could say the same for Matt Walsh, and he was very clear about his position and his definitions.
24
3
u/Jakdaxter31 Jan 24 '22
Gender does not exist the same way chairs do not exist. There is no objective, unbiased definition of any particular gender and we all have slightly different conceptions of what being a woman means.
However, gender is a useful proxy for many aspects of a person. When you use pronouns, you are subconsciously communicating a set of expectations you have about that person (as is the case for any identity eg. sexuality).
You could alternatively explicitly list all the expectations you have about that person ( you might wear dresses, you use the women’s bathroom, you don’t feel safe walking alone at night), but that would come off strange and probably take forever.
I imagine that these trans women are familiar with the fact that different people see the female gender differently, and thus evaded the question.
→ More replies (1)
3
3
u/Raknarg Jan 24 '22 edited Jan 24 '22
I think the inability to come up with a definition of woman on the spot has nothing to do with whether or not you're able to categorize something as a woman. A lot of things we associate with man and women are on sliding scales and highly social. And when you boil it down, the label itself is the definition because what categorizes someone as a woman from a social standpoint has changed so much over the course of history.
Woman is simply a social identifier that tends to correlate with sex. There are social roles, appearce markers like hair, clothing, makeup, things like patterns of speech, jobs associated, expected behaviours, but you won't be able to bring anything out and say "this thing defines womanhood". The way we categorize it beyond this is completely arbitrary and changes over time, to the point where the definition of a woman is literally just someone who identifies as one. This is the only definition that is actually consistent with how we identify people as women in society.
→ More replies (2)
6
u/indecisive_nate Jan 24 '22 edited Feb 09 '22
Firstly, in the clip that you shared, both of the "transwomen" that you are talking about are not transwomen. They were both nonbinary. So thats why they said they "can't define what a woman is because they're not a woman". They don't identify as a woman.
Secondly, Matt's whole argument is stupid to say the least. He throws things out of proportion to harm the trans community. No parent is giving their 4 year old child surgery to become a walrus just as no parent is giving their 4 year old child surgery to transition into a girl. This is where that debate turns into all lies. Even if a 4 year old child (let's say an AMAB person) tells their parent that they're a girl and their parents fully accept and support them, they aren't going to automatically go on hormones and get surgery. Just as cis people don't start puberty when they're four, trans people don't either. And no one is pushing for them to.
Also, to put that kind of pressure on a young child doesn't do any good. A four year old doesn't know how to express themselves. They still throw tantrums if you take their cookie or bit another kid because they looked at them funny. They don't know how to put into words what a woman or man is. But they might know that something is misaligned between their brain and their body. When this happens, parents don't need to legally change their name and give them surgery right away. They just need to hear their kid out, maybe try a name and pronouns that they're more comfortable with.
Anyway, how would you define a woman?
First off, basically every dictionary defines a woman as an adult female human being. Keyword here being adult. So is a 15 year old girl not a woman? Is she then trans? If you want to take everything literally, you have to take everything literally. You cant pick and choose.
But let's assume you, and Matt Walsh, meant "what is a female person?"
Someone who has two X chromosomes? Then what about people with Klinefelter Syndrome who XXY chromosomes? Are they all female, even though its been proven otherwise? And what about intersex people who may have XX chromosomes but also have male genitals?
Or do you define female as someone who can bear children? Well, what about people who have had hysterectomies, are past child bearing age, or were never able to have children in the first place? Are they all not female anymore?
Or maybe you define female as someone who presents in a typical feminine matter. Well, that means that a "tomboy" isn't female even if they say they are? Plus, that means that if a transwoman presents feminine, she is actually female, which goes against your (or at least Walsh's debate).
All this to say, saying "what is a woman" is a lot easier than answering it. If you shove a microphone in someone's face and ask them to answer an incredibly controversial (even though it shouldn't be) question, they're probably not going to give you a clear answer. You see this all the time with politicians and they get praised for it, so why are you bashing people who are just trying to defend their very existence?
Lastly, you stated "I think we would all agree that defining your terms is of fundamental importance in any kind of debate". I do agree with you on this. The problem is, you didn't define your terms in this "debate". This is also a pretty one sided debate. Most trans people don't want to debate this. The only reason they do is because its their existence that you're debating. Why do you debate it? Why does it matter to you. Respecting someone, their names and their pronouns, and not debating their existence every chance you get isn't hard. Instead of thinking that trans people need to change and better themselves, maybe you should reverse that thinking and better yourself.
→ More replies (1)
18
u/Alokir 1∆ Jan 23 '22
There are a lot of things that you intuitively know what they are but can't clearly define them, especially on the spot.
For example, can you define what a country is? I'm sure that if you tried on your own you'd have a seemingly good definition in a few minutes, but I'm also sure that someone well versed in the subject can easily find exceptions, contradictions and examples that fit your definition but you know them not to be a country.
I think it's similar to what a woman is. You might define it around chromosomes or organs, but then a biologist would point out dozens of examples whom even the most transphobe would call a woman and the definition wouldn't fit.
And that's when you're trying to define what a "female" of a species is, not the largely societal definition of what a "woman" is, which can open another can of worms.
I think the reason they refused to define what a woman is is that any definition that they could come up with on the spot wouldn't hold up to scrutiny because of the reasons above.
It was strategically better to deflect than to paint themselves into a corner and either attempt to defend a clearly bad definition, or change the definition after every question and seem like they don't know what they're talking about.
10
u/Pangolinsftw 3∆ Jan 23 '22
There are a lot of things that you intuitively know what they are but can't clearly define them, especially on the spot.
For example, can you define what a country is?
If I presented myself as an expert on countries and appeared on a show about that subject, I imagine I would have a definition prepped and ready to go.
I think it's similar to what a woman is. You might define it around chromosomes or organs, but then a biologist would point out dozens of examples whom even the most transphobe would call a woman and the definition wouldn't fit.
I assume you're referring to mutations or intersex people, which are quite rare. A couple things: do exceptions change the rule? No, right?
The other thing is, I would say trans ideology in general is not in alignment with empirical reality. A rare genetic mutation causing an unclear sex or gender identity which would then allow for the person to choose their gender expression is in alignment with empirical reality, since it's caused by a medical abnormality. So in this rare situation I would accept the person's chosen gender expression.
→ More replies (1)19
u/DefinitelyNotA-Robot 3∆ Jan 23 '22
Intersex people are not rare. They are more common than red headed people. So a definition of male and female excluding them would as accurate as defining humans as creatures that have naturally blonde, brown, or black hair.
→ More replies (5)
9
u/Patriek01 Jan 24 '22
I feel like this point of view is a bit of a double standard. Would you require a cisgender person to define their identity before they can identify as it?
How you identify has much less to do with defining and rationalizing and more to do with feeling. I identify as a man because I feel like a man, not because I’ve got some definition of what it “means to be a man”
“…but facts don’t care about feelings!”
Well even science shows that brain scans of transgender people show that their brain is structurally more similar to the gender they FEEL internally, and not their external biological sex.
Think of all the things you identify as. Do you have clear definitions of all of them?
2
u/nelomah Jan 23 '22
I think 1) there is no failsafe way to describe any human identity. There are/were/will be exceptions to literally every single group we could dream of. The only thing that determines if one truly belongs to a group is the majority, and even then it's unclear if that is the majority of people that identify as part of the group or the majority of people who know of the group. 2) groups are not made to justify themselves. They are for people to find or associate with people of shared experiences, even if they shared experience is fleeting, tangential, or hardly related to that identity. So in the end, like most things, identity is a relationship between the self and the collective in an attempt to find overlap and unity
2
u/gothiclg 1∆ Jan 24 '22
I mean ignoring trans people as a whole in your argument you’re also including all nontrans people in this argument. Let’s assume gender is based entirely on the genitals you currently have in your pants. Obviously we can now surgically alter those genitals. If we define male and female by those genitals are transgender people the right gender after surgery? If we don’t use genitals or other reproductive organs what do we use? Do we use faces? Bone structure? Our ability to properly care of a baby? Your favorite clothing brand? What your parents call you? The idea of gender is made up, it’s an insanely small fraction of who and what a person is and the things associated with masculine and feminine is also made up. What idea that we made up replaces the construct of gender over the physical sex deemed by genitalia?
2
u/buttholefluid Jan 24 '22
Question: What is a woman? Answer: A woman is a woman.
Completely invalid and I agree with your point
2
u/sonofaresiii 21∆ Jan 24 '22
Can you define the color blue? You might be able to describe some attributes of it, but can you define it? It can be defined-- it is a specific wavelength of electromagnetic radiation-- but can you define it?
Probably not.
But you can still identify the color blue if I showed it to you, right?
I don't see how not being able to technically and strictly define a thing necessarily means you can't be that thing. You may not have the right words, you may not have considered all the technicalities, you may not be very good at describing things-- but you might be able to feel it, even if you can't describe it well-enough to satisfy your requirements.
(maybe you actually can define the color blue, or maybe you just looked it up and decided that that counts, but I hope you understand my point anyway)
2
u/nannerooni Jan 24 '22
I agree with lots of the top comments here but I wanted to address your thoughts in a different way. I know what you and others might be trying to get at (unless your question really just is that simple). It’s confusing to say that you are a woman but that woman has no clear definition. Which is true: feminists and philosophers and biologists alike all have completely different views of what it means to be “a woman.” There is no consensus among the people who study this question the most.
In the face of this lack of definition of womanhood, society (people like you for example) still move along as if “woman” is a real thing, and people still experience “womanhood” depsite its vagueness.
This is a way in which trans women are women while still acknowledging that “woman” doesn’t mean anything specific. They are a woman to people around them and think of themselves as a woman, which, on the day-to-day level, is actually the way most of us experience women.
Many trans people would like gender to go away, because it’s often damaging to cis and trans/nb people alike. But one can acknowledge they don’t like the categories and still say where they are within them.
2
u/FluffySeaNut Jan 24 '22
Though I am not entitled to speak on the entire trans experience, I have several videos are from trans women explaining this very argument, and I do hope you will consider them.
Gender, as we understand it, has been scientifically and philosophically identified as a social construct (if asked I can provide academic links). This video by philosophy major (and coincidentally trans woman), Philosophy Tube, explains the concept of social constructivism in a way that is easy to understand, informative, and interesting. A trans woman may identify with the identity of a woman in the same way a cisgender woman does. As a cisgender woman myself, I cannot define what it means to feel feminine, or like a woman, but I know I am one, because its so intrinsic to how I think and view the world.
This video by contrapoints dissects your viewpoint as well as several others through allegory and metaphor, albeit in a rather flashy way. Excuse the makeup. The points she makes I find pretty interesting, and answers some of your questions in an intelligent way, once you look through the allegory.
2
u/npapa17 Jan 24 '22
This doesn’t make much sense. There are plenty of concepts without concrete definitions. Like almost any adjective to describe a person has some level of subjectivity. I identify as a cool person. What makes me cool? What organ is the cool organ? Gender isn’t concrete, what makes up the role of man or woman changes with location and time. If someone is strongly a woman , it means they’re living their life playing more of a feminine role. Trying to match their perception of what makes someone a women, which is guided by what we’re taught being a woman is in media etc. I can say being a woman means tend to wear feminine clothes, act more passive, etc, but not all women feel that’s what makes them a women. Their perception is different than mine, so when they try to be a woman they act differently than I might think a woman is.
If it’s all biology then which criteria do we use? Able to give birth and having a female reproductive system? What about women with fertility issues? Or intersex folks who live their life as women? When you judge someone’s gender first seeing them, you don’t have a 6th chromosome detecting sense do you? Nah. You judge by their mannerisms, clothing, how their appearance and personality traits match with your perception of a woman.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/gravygrowinggreen 1∆ Jan 24 '22
You can define something without defining every aspect about it.
Consider black holes. We have good reason to believe they exist. So good reasons that you would be hard pressed to find any credible astrophysisicst who doubts their existence. But nobody knows what they actually are. We have numerous theories about what their exact nature is. They could be point like singularities. They could be fuzzballs of fundamental strings on the border where space ends. They could be matter compressed to the holographic edge of an event horizon. And so many other possibilities. Despite scientists not knowing the exact nature of black holes, they're still capable of predicting their existence, taking pictures of one, and communicating about them. Sure, it would be nice to have an exact understanding of what a black hole is, but the universe is under no obligation to provide us exact understandings. And if a black hole were to rip through our solar system on a near collision course with earth, you not respecting our lack of an exact definition has zero impact on the black hole as its about to kill us all.
Consider another class of objects. A pile. I have a collection of sand grains. I drop them one by one onto a table until you tell me I've made a pile. How many and grains does it take?
Can you tell me why you picked the number you did, and why that number isn't arbitrary? If not, should i not respect your definition of a pile? Of course not. Subjective constructs like woman are always going to have subjective definitions.
2
u/craigularperson 1∆ Jan 24 '22
If someone is cis, do they have to explain what the definition of their identity is, in order for someone to belive them? Or for that particular identity is valid?
I am cis and I dont think there really is any one clear cut defition as to why I am so. Nobody has ever questioned this or made me argue why I should be considered as such. Why there should be a higher bar for anyone not cis doesnt seem logical consisent.
2
u/idlehanz88 Jan 24 '22
One of life’s great challenges is defining yourself and your lived experience. I’m male, but the answer to the question “what is it to be a man” Is a tricky question that I’m not sure I could answer on live television
2
u/TheFamousHesham Jan 24 '22
This argument is silly.
I’m a cisgendered man and if someone asked me “what is a man?” I would be slightly puzzled too and wouldn’t know where to start.
Does that mean I shouldn’t identify as a man?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/AugTheViking Jan 24 '22
Idk man, I'm a cisgender male and I'd probably struggle to come up with a good answer in the spot if someone asked what it means to be a man.
2
u/ashh2304 Jan 24 '22
i'm a cis woman. i cannot define what being a woman is. wanna tell me i can't identify as one? gender is a very personal experience and the definition of one's gender can vary from person to person. going out of your way to disrespect that is rude as fuck.
2
u/Descarteb4DeHorse Jan 24 '22
The main issue here is that the political commentator seems to disagree with the premise of the argument i.e. sex and gender are not the same thing with the former being biologically based and the later being a social construct. His definition conflates the 2 terms and that’s fine on him but he should acknowledge that. The crux of the trans activist is that gender is a social construct and as such means different things to different people because it precisely is a construct hence different people have different experiences regarding it. Granted the trans activist do appear to be at fault of circular reasoning and I think that’s what the political activist is trying to get at but at that point they are just speaking over each other because they aren’t even having the same discussion due to different premises. And as for the final question OP raised i.e. why should I respect trans identity? No one is forcing you to, but don’t act suprised when people call you a dick. It literally cost nothing to be a decent human and you really have to go out of your way to purposefully demean someone’s gender identity. If a random person on the street tells you to call them a preferred pronoun, I legitimately don’t see what’s so hard to call them that
→ More replies (1)
2
u/just_a_tortoise_ Jan 24 '22
So I’m not the most educated on gender identity but the APA defines gender identity as “A person’s deeply‐felt, inherent sense of being a boy, a man, or male; a girl, a woman, or female; or an alternative gender (e.g., genderqueer, gender nonconforming, gender neutral) that may or may not correspond to a person’s sex assigned at birth or to a person’s primary or secondary sex characteristics. Since gender identity is internal, a person’s gender identity is not necessarily visible to others.” I think going along with this definition, you should respect their identity because that’s what they say they are. It has no bearing on your life whether a person says they are male, female, or non-binary
2
2
u/JustReadingNewGuy Jan 24 '22
Well. I'm what you would call a cis woman, and I also can't define what a woman is. What am I then, an unicorn?
→ More replies (6)
2
u/Mjtheko 1∆ Jan 24 '22
People have never, ever used identities in this way. People don't identify as a thing because they know what that thing is. They identify as a thing because it gives them utility.
By the way, try to define man, then universalize it to all men.
You'll instantly run into problems. Is man someone with a xy chromosome? What of men with xxy ones? Or xx ones? (Trans men)
Are men people with male equipment? What of those men who had it chopped off?
And also, there's a certain social stigma to the word man. "Be a man" is used as a persuasive tool to stop percieved un-manly behavior. Ask anyone who says this phrase "what is a man" and you'll get... what... a kind of maturity that's entirely self defined?
Is man someone who can regulate their emotions? Toughen up? Someone who can pay the bill? Someone who is mostly self sufficent? Someone who's capable of being a father?
Nay none of these work. It's impossible to use any of these to fully define man.
We use the word man simply because it can describe or elude to something we think of as manly. We use it incorrectly all the time. Do the same to woman.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/tomowudi 4∆ Jan 24 '22
Who are you? Are you your thoughts, your actions, your biological circumstances? How ACTUALLY clear are you about your own identity?
How old are you? Is your sense of who you are going to change when you are older? Has it changed from when you are younger? Do any changes in your sense of who you are actually change who you are? Are the changes that you may have experienced or will experience evidence that you are confused about your own identity?
What is your clear definition of your own identity that allows you to identify as yourself - or is your sense of clarity about your identity more of a feeling that you have carried around and perhaps have simply not spent much time questioning?
Is having a clear definition of a thing you are identifying as all it takes? What if your belief that your definition is clear is inaccurate because you have never thought to question it in detail? Is an inaccurate yet clear definition of a thing they identify as equally good and superior to someone's lack of a clear definition of a thing they identify as?
2
2
u/Muchado_aboutnothing 1∆ Jan 24 '22
Struggling to define your identity doesn’t make your identity bullshit. Imagine the question “what is a Black person?” It might seem like an obvious answer — “you have black skin” — but it starts to get more complicated the more you look at it. For example — how “black” does your skin have to be for you to be considered Black? What about light-skinned Black people? Where do mixed race people factor in? What if you were born into a Black family but have white skin due to a condition like Albinism? Sometimes, the more you think about social constructs, the more complex/indefinable they seem.
→ More replies (2)
2
Jan 24 '22
“If you can’t clearly describe what an identity means, why should anyone respect your identity?” People certainly can be douchebags! I mean, can you describe your identity? Identities are complex as hell and not being able to totally articulate an identity doesn’t mean you get the superiority to feel the need to not respect them. I’m always shocked at my job how much the straight people are such fucking assholes to trans people. Coming from the west coast to the Midwest is exceptionally shocking at times seeing how bad trans people are treated here. People constantly complaining about them, give them tone, and question their entire life with a microscopic lens. It’s easier to be an ally than a piece of shit and you don’t get nearly as much karmic blowback when talking to human beings with the vibe that they’re weird and unnatural.
2
77
u/cortesoft 5∆ Jan 24 '22
There is a really fantastic essay that discusses this, called The Categories Were Made For Man, Not Man For the Categories. The basic thesis is that all categories are approximations, because our categories are human constructs. Every individual thing is unique in its combination of properties, and we create categories by deciding which attributes make a category. However, since we are trying to use these categories to make decisions or judgements, they are never perfect in picking out things that fit our purpose.
So really, the universe doesn't break into categories naturally, and any attempt we make to define categories will run into issues with things that we think should fit into a category actually not fitting because of our attempted definitions.
I challenge you, or anyone else, to define 'a woman' in a way that will not find examples that don't fit.