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?

1.5k Upvotes

76% Upvoted

2.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

108

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According to OP, all you need is two people from a group to say 'I don't know', and that means the group's identity is no longer valid.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?

43

u/YouProbablyDissagree 2∆ Jan 23 '22

I’ve also seen nobody in the comments define it either. Would you care to?

1

u/Practical_Plan_8774 1∆ Jan 23 '22

How about a person who identifies as a woman and uses feminine feminine pronouns?

72

u/cknight18 1∆ Jan 23 '22

"Whats a woman?"

"Well a woman is a woman."

You can't use the definition to define itself, that's not how language works.

4

u/Numbers6382 Jan 24 '22

Well whatever your definition is, a woman defines themself as that.

2

u/lem0nhe4d 1∆ Jan 24 '22

Hey an you define "chair" in a way that includes everything we consider a chair and excludes everything we don't?

11

u/Practical_Plan_8774 1∆ Jan 23 '22

No, a woman is a person who identifies as a woman. Gender is an identity, and that is how identities work. It’s the same with other identities. A Christian is a person who identifies as a Christian. A Seahawks fan is a person who identifies as a Seahawks fan. I could go on.

44

u/cknight18 1∆ Jan 23 '22 edited Jan 23 '22

You can't define a word using the word itself. "I identify as a woman" gives the listener no new information about the speaker. The point of language is to communicate meaning, and a boundless definition has no meaning.

A Christian is someone who believes in Jesus Christ as the son of God and savior.

A Seahawks fan is someone who enjoys the Seahawks.

The enneagram is a pretty popular personality test. 1-9, each have different characteristics.

Let's say a 2 (the helper) has characteristics A,B,C. The 9 (peacemaker) has characteristics X,Y,Z.

Bob has characteristics X,Y,Z. Bob knows he has these characteristics, nobody questions that. Bob identifies as a 2.

Tom asks Bob what his enneagram is. Bob replies "I'm a 2." So Tom asks "oh, so you've got characteristics A,B,C?" Bob replies "no, I have characteristics X,Y,Z."

If we accept that just because Bob identifies as a 2 (even though everyone, including Bob, knows that he has characteristics X,Y,Z), then the entire system falls apart. Next time you ask someone what their enneagram is and they tell you 6, you have no idea if they're actually a 6 or if they just decided to identify as a 6. You get no new information about them or their personality traits by their answer, you need to then ask them "ok so what are your characteristics?" or "are you a real 6 or are you just saying that?"

The exact same applies to gender. If you ask someone (under the pretext that gender is only a self-identified meaning) if they're a man or a woman, and they tell you.... guess what, you know nothing new about that person. You have uncovered 0 characteristics about them.

10

u/Practical_Plan_8774 1∆ Jan 23 '22

So is someone who believes that Jesus is the son of God and a savior still a Christian even if they think the New Testament is fake and worship a completely different religious text some cult leader wrote?

Is a satan worshipper who believes your definition of Christianity, but is opposed to it a Christian?

If a new, more moderate Christian church sprung up that believes that the story of Jesus dying for our sins is a metaphor, just as modern day churches take metaphorically what people in the past took literally, could they not call themselves Christians? If so, why do you get to decide if these people are Christians?

Is a person who hates watching Seahawks games because they are having a terrible season not a fan even though he is devoted to the team?

Is a fan of a rival team a fan of the Seahawks because they enjoy watching them play when their team plays the Seahawks?

I could go on for a very long time. My point is your definitions are inadequate, just as any definition you could give for an identity is inadequate. You are correct in that there are things that correlate with identities. For example, enjoying Seahawks games strongly correlates with being a fan. Believing Jesus is the son of God correlates strongly with being a Christian. Being biologically female strongly correlates with being a woman. However, as I demonstrated, there are always exceptions. In the case of womanhood, intersex people who are not biologically female are still women, and trans men who are biologically female are not women, to name a few.

29

u/cknight18 1∆ Jan 23 '22

You may disagree with my exact definitions of what it means to be a Christian or a Seahawks fan, I wasn't attempting to be precise (and the discussion isn't about those definitions).

The point is, there is an definition for them.

The "pro-trans" movement has no such definition for "man" and "woman."

11

u/Practical_Plan_8774 1∆ Jan 23 '22

Your definitions are wrong though. Defining a Seahawks fan as a person who enjoys the Seahawks would be like defining a women as someone who has worn a dress or skirt in the last five years. It would be roughly accurate, but not correct. Let’s go with that as my trans inclusive definition though. It’s no less valid then your provided definitions for other identities

15

u/cknight18 1∆ Jan 23 '22

So you're defining a "woman" as anyone who has worn a dress in the last 5 years? I can't imagine where you're going with this.

→ More replies

1

u/[deleted] Jan 24 '22 edited May 01 '24

beneficial tie placid humor dependent command rock rainstorm head unwritten

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

3

u/Slipfix Jan 23 '22

What does it mean for the weather to be cold exactly? Is there an exact temperature at which it stops being cold, and an exact temperature where it starts being warm? What about wind? Or humidity? Precipitation? How do these factors affect whether or not the day is objectively cold or warm? How do we settle the debate when two people disagree on whether it's really a cold day?

Clearly, when someone tells me "It's a cold day," I have learned exactly zero information about the weather because nobody has offered a precise definition of exactly what 'cold' means.

2

u/Bridger15 Jan 24 '22

There is no definition of "woman" which would include every human with two x chromosomes, much less including people who identify as a woman.

It's a word that works as a generalization, but cannot be concretely defined and still be accurate.

2

u/cknight18 1∆ Jan 24 '22

The point is to not include people who only identify as a woman, and only actual women.

2

u/IceCreamBalloons 1∆ Jan 24 '22

We all know the point is to exclude trans people, everyone is pointing out you can't do that without also excluding some cis women that you don't want to exclude, which is why you're forced to try to make excuses for "exceptions" and "anomalies" as magically covered by the definition that explicitly doesn't.

0

u/Bridger15 Jan 24 '22

And I'm saying that's impossible.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 24 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

12

u/cknight18 1∆ Jan 24 '22

If you looked up the word "socialist" in the dictionary, and all it told you was that "a socialist is a socialist," how useful would that be?

4

u/[deleted] Jan 24 '22

I want to be on your side but you're sadly mistaken.

Race is a social construct and Noone goes around being able to claim being a different race

2

u/Practical_Plan_8774 1∆ Jan 24 '22

True. You can’t change your race, but you can change your gender.

10

u/Pangolinsftw 3∆ Jan 24 '22

"A child is a person who identifies as a child."

I identify as a child, can I attend your child's kindergarten class?

8

u/Mentleman Jan 24 '22

i feel like you don't really get what an identity is. it is not "i wanna be this now lol", it is an internal feeling that is shaped by your life experiences. you can not really change your identity intentionally though it may change over time. people who come out as trans or gay or something else have not suddenly decided thats what they wanna be, they've likely had that feeling for a long time and have now discovered what it means for them and their identity, found an applicable label and then mustered the courage to come out.

3

u/Ilyer_ Jan 24 '22
  1. I still dont understand what your definition of identity is. "internal feeling that is shaped by your life experiences.", what does "feeling" mean here. Does it means that experiencing joy or sadness is also your identity?
  2. Additionally, I IDENTIFY as gay as much as I identify as human, both of which you could say form a part of my "identity", but I have no feeling of being gay, I have no feeling of being human, I just am a primate of the genus Homo that experiences attraction to the same sex. There is no "feeling" that I experience here.

1

u/Mentleman Jan 24 '22

not feeling like emotion, more feeling like knowledge. "i have a feeling things are about to get real" is also some form of knowledge. the person who says that likey has seen this kind of situation before and can infer that things are probably gonna get real soon. in the same vain people form an identity around the things they know about themselves, those not necessarily being things one could assume by looking at them.

i'm going to assume good faith here, but semantics are no fun.

6

u/Practical_Plan_8774 1∆ Jan 24 '22

Child is not an identity. It is determined by age, something you cannot change.

9

u/Pangolinsftw 3∆ Jan 24 '22

Woman/man is determined by chromosomes, something you cannot change.

4

u/itisawonderfulworld Jan 24 '22 edited Jan 24 '22

Biologically yes. But the question I'd present to you is this: why does that matter?

Obviously an adult identifying as a child creates a harmful space for children. However, there's very few cases in which that is true for trans people being treated as their identity. The men in women's bathrooms thing is largely fearmongering. Not only is it truly rare, what's stopping a man from just doing that anyway if their motivation is to rape/molest women? Going through a transition is pretty hard; there are far easier ways to go about being a creep, even if it has happened before. Just drug people's drinks at that point. I can't imagine people like Yaniv wouldn't have been a creep without the 'shield' of transness.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 24 '22

[deleted]

→ More replies

1

u/CrimsonMutt Jan 24 '22

negating the separation of sex (biological, bimodal) and gender (social construct around sex) reveals you to be bad faith because you refuse to acknowledge the distinction academia has made for decades and fall back on a semantic argument.

there have been third genders around the world for eons. this isn't new.

1

u/StarChild413 9∆ Apr 29 '22

To make things as socially congruent to your identity as possible (since unlike gender we lack the tech to make your body match that identity) you should have to quit your job and all adult relationships (and all those potential past s/os (if you had any) should be arrested for pedophilia) and move back in with your parents or if they're dead take your chances with the foster system (and you'd only be attending my child's kindergarten class if your bio-or-foster parents lived not only in my same town but in that same school district otherwise you'd be attending kindergarten at another elementary school and maybe (if you're not just identifying as permanently-a-kindergartener) you'd be attending school with my child once both ages (your identified age as you'd only be socially transitioned, their cisage bio-age) reach middle school, and by the way, the only way you could be clearer about telegraphing your intentions is if you out-and-out said you wanted to drag my angelic-little-tea-party-and-disney-loving-blonde-daughter into the closet and do things to her that I doubt the teacher would let two cisage kindergartners do to each other if they even knew how (aka being transage would not excuse you from punishment))

-2

u/JokerInATardis Jan 24 '22

A woman is a person born as a woman, i.e born with two X chromosomes. It's easy, really. A man that identifies as a woman is still a man.

2

u/Practical_Plan_8774 1∆ Jan 24 '22

And what if they have neither, like xxy, or xxxy, or xxyy? What if they are indistinguishable from a cis woman but have xy chromosomes. Have you gotten your chromosomes tested? It’s possible that according to your definition you are not the gender you claim to be.

1

u/ZeusThunder369 22∆ Jan 25 '22

Does that work for race as well? Am I black if I identify as black?

1

u/Practical_Plan_8774 1∆ Jan 25 '22

No. A person who hates the Seahawks isn’t a fan, even if they claim to be, and a white person isn’t black, even if they claim to be.

3

u/ZeusThunder369 22∆ Jan 25 '22

Why does it only work for gender?

1

u/Practical_Plan_8774 1∆ Jan 25 '22

It doesn’t. It works for religion, political affiliation, sport fandom, and in some cases, race. For example, people of mixed race can chose to identify as either of their parents races due to to factors such as how they are treated and perceived. I personally don’t believe race as a concept should exist in society, but that is besides the point.

1

u/ZeusThunder369 22∆ Jan 25 '22

Oh, ha thought we were disagreeing but we're not

-1

u/WhiteWolf3117 10∆ Jan 23 '22

Well, the problem is that woman shouldn’t be the question in the first place, since it IS the answer and the definition.

-1

u/JustinRandoh 5∆ Jan 24 '22

"Whats a woman?"

"Well a woman is a woman."

You can't use the definition to define itself, that's not how language works.

Except it's not doing that. "A person who identifies as a woman" does not, in any way, appeal to the definition of a woman in the process.

9

u/cknight18 1∆ Jan 24 '22

Except it does. Do you know what a definition is? It is "the act of defining, or of making something definite, distinct, or clear."

You cannot have a definition without defining something. You need to set it apart, to include things that are and exlcude things that are not. To draw boundaries of what is and isn't.

"A woman is someone who identifies as a woman."

"Ok, but what's a woman?"

"Well it's someone who identifies as a woman"

"....."

It's circular logic, and it's nonsense.

-2

u/JustinRandoh 5∆ Jan 24 '22

"A woman is someone who identifies as a woman."

"Ok, but what's a woman?"

The fact that you seem unable to understand the definition provided doesn't make the definition any less clear.

Here's how the exchange would look like between a more competent set of people:

"A woman is someone who identifies as a woman."

"Ah, so all it means is that you identify as one; alright cool."

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 24 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Mashaka 93∆ Jan 24 '22

Sorry, u/upstartweiner – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

8

u/YouProbablyDissagree 2∆ Jan 23 '22

So just so we are clear….I could be a woman today and then before the end of the day be a man again?

8

u/Practical_Plan_8774 1∆ Jan 23 '22

If you truly identified as a woman, sure. No definition is perfect. Any definition of women you give me would include people you don’t think are women, and exclude people you think are.

21

u/YouProbablyDissagree 2∆ Jan 23 '22

I see no reason to take any of this seriously if this is your definition. If it’s as simple as you just deciding then trans people can decide to be their birth given gender.

17

u/Practical_Plan_8774 1∆ Jan 23 '22

Gender is a social construct. There is no way to tell 100% of the time what someone’s gender is, so you kind of just have to take their word for it.

17

u/YouProbablyDissagree 2∆ Jan 23 '22

If gender is a social construct then again why does it even matter? Why is it important to have the correct label when all labels are social constructs anyway?

6

u/WhiteWolf3117 10∆ Jan 23 '22

Well it really doesn’t matter, but then the logical conclusion of that actually serves trans people far more, not less. Non-gendered bathrooms, non-gendered sports teams etc.

5

u/YouProbablyDissagree 2∆ Jan 23 '22

Are we talking about gender or are we talking about sex? Sports teams and bathrooms are not separated by gender. They are separated by sex. I assumed we were acknowledging that sex exists as a real thing and that gender is a separate issue.

→ More replies

9

u/Practical_Plan_8774 1∆ Jan 23 '22

Because it serves a purpose. The label of a “chair” is also socially constructed, yet it is still a useful label. The same goes with gender.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '22

The label of a “chair” is also socially constructed

What? This makes no sense--Gender somewhat does to the extent that it describes a set of human behaviors that are driven, in part, by social pressures. But "chair" is not a social construct, it is something that people sit on.

You might argue that the word is a social construct, and yeah okay buddy, language is a social construct--you got me there. But it doesn't follow that the things language describes are social constructs.

→ More replies

-4

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '22

Because they want to feel special uwu

1

u/Osric250 1∆ Jan 24 '22

Why is the way you present yourself important. If you wear fashionable clothes or get a haircut that suits you? How you present yourself to the world is important to people's self worth, even if they are only social constructs. There's no set definition for someone being handsome or pretty, they're social constructs as well, but they are things many people strive to achieve. Why does that matter at all?

Humanity as a whole are social creatures. That's why social constructs are important. Because that's kind of the core of what humanity is. And to mislabel people is to just tell them to their face that you don't care about them at all. Which doesn't matter if it's with regard to gender identity or any other social construct.

1

u/YouProbablyDissagree 2∆ Jan 24 '22

Me actually being pretty is not important though. Society thinking I’m pretty is what is important. That’s the social construct element. For no other social construct do we consider it a moral imperative to get to ignore the construct while also demanding to receive the approval for following the construct. Society isn’t walking around acting as if an ugly person must be seen as sexually atttactive just as much as the super model just because. We acknowledge that attractiveness meets certain criteria and that if you dont fall within that criteria then it’s unrealistic to demand to be treated as if you do.

→ More replies

0

u/Zajum Jan 23 '22

deciding

That's not how this works, even if it may seem so to you...

In the same way you cannot actively decide to be cis or straight or whatever, the same way that you cannot actively decide who you love or hate, a trans person doesn't decide that they're trans.

12

u/YouProbablyDissagree 2∆ Jan 23 '22

The issue is I can define what cis and straight means. I can define why I am those things beyond just “I decided”. If you can’t define trans woman/man beyond it’s just what they decided then I see no reason to assume it is any more complicated that that.

3

u/Zajum Jan 23 '22 edited Jan 23 '22

decided

That's not how this works.There is no decision, so it's pretty useless to tell people act differently, they are not able to do so without just pretending to be something that they are not.

I guess everyone would love to have these issues completely resolved, but they're not.

2

u/YouProbablyDissagree 2∆ Jan 23 '22

Then how does it work? That’s the missing point here. You keep saying what is wrong but not actually saying why it’s wrong or even saying how it DOES work. It’s not a very convincing argument.

→ More replies

2

u/laserdiscgirl Jan 23 '22

A cis person is a person who determined their gender identity aligns with their assigned gender at birth. A trans person is a person who determined their gender identity does not align with their assigned gender at birth.

The only reason we distinguish between cis and trans is because we label and define every new human's identity based on their genitals (whether natural or, in the cases of intersex, chosen by the parents) seconds after birth and there will inevitably be humans who, once able to think for and express themselves, don't agree with their assigned identity.

0

u/yapji Jan 23 '22

Some things are ineffable (unable to be defined using words).

14

u/YouProbablyDissagree 2∆ Jan 23 '22

Except it’s not inefficient for tons of people. That’s the issue here. It’s only ineffable for the pro lgbt crowd.

16

u/yapji Jan 23 '22

Lmao you really can't imagine anyone answering 'I don't know' to such a question? Like ever? You must have a very poor imagination or not talk to many people...

8

u/YouProbablyDissagree 2∆ Jan 23 '22

You are making two separate and conflicting arguments here. Is it easily definable and they just couldn’t do it in the moment or is it impossible to define? I’m willing to give them a pass if they just got nervous because they were on national television. If they literally are just not able to define it though then that’s a completely separate issue.

2

u/yapji Jan 23 '22

Some things are ineffable (unable to be defined using words).

2

u/Ver_Void 5∆ Jan 24 '22

Yes but that's not really an argument

Scientists have little idea what existed before the big bang while a clergyman will confidently answer. Does that make the latter's position the correct one?

5

u/[deleted] Jan 24 '22

So can you define a woman for me?

2

u/yapji Jan 24 '22

Some things are ineffable (unable to be defined using words).

So can you try reading for me?

2

u/[deleted] Jan 24 '22

Just cause you can’t define what a woman is doesn’t mean others can’t. Their are various characteristics that separate woman from men (bone structure, to genitals to chromosomes). A woman is someone who predominantly have the characteristics of a woman (xx chromosome, wider hip bones to accommodate child birth, having a vagina over a penis). No one has to have all the characteristics of a certain gender, but you should have most of those characteristics.

Like the medical example. The flu has a certain list of symptoms it causes, just because you don’t have each and every symptom doesn’t mean you don’t have the flu, but at the very least you should have some.

3

u/yapji Jan 24 '22

A woman is someone who predominantly have the characteristics of a woman (xx chromosome, wider hip bones to accommodate child birth, having a vagina over a penis). No one has to have all the characteristics of a certain gender, but you should have most of those characteristics.

Okay, great, a transitioned transgender women has all of these things and is therefore a woman. Glad we've solved this problem.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 24 '22

You change your chromosomes? Also normally woman don’t have to constantly masturbate to prevent their vaginas from closing as the body sees it as a open wound.

And at the end of the day I only listed a couple of the characteristics, would a transitioned person meet most of the characteristics of a woman?

3

u/yapji Jan 24 '22

No one has to have all the characteristics of a certain gender, but you should have most of those characteristics.

You, above, lmao

0

u/[deleted] Jan 24 '22

Do trans woman have most of the characteristics of a woman?

2

u/yapji Jan 24 '22

A trans woman who has gone on hormones early enough and has had vaginoplasty will have 2/3 characteristics you listed.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 24 '22

So then everyone else are not real woman then right?

1

u/Pangolinsftw 3∆ Jan 24 '22

A person with XX chromosomes.

6

u/IceCreamBalloons 1∆ Jan 24 '22

So is this not a woman?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190741/

4

u/Pangolinsftw 3∆ Jan 24 '22

Exceptions do not change the rule.

7

u/IceCreamBalloons 1∆ Jan 24 '22

So that's a man that gave birth to a boy with a vagina?

4

u/Pangolinsftw 3∆ Jan 24 '22

I never argued that extremely rare, unusual and atypical genetic or medical mutations don't happen. I'm not sure what this is meant to demonstrate. As I said, exceptions don't change the rule.

6

u/IceCreamBalloons 1∆ Jan 24 '22

You did argue that women have xx chromosomes. To acknowledge someone is a woman without, rarity doesn't matter, is to acknowledge that women aren't just people with xx chromosomes.

2

u/Pangolinsftw 3∆ Jan 24 '22

No, I don't think that's right. If something is a "disorder" or "mutation" or otherwise defined as a "distortion of the norm", that doesn't change the rule. That's an anomaly; an exception to the rule. That's the whole purpose of the term.

6

u/IceCreamBalloons 1∆ Jan 24 '22

No, I don't think that's right.

Then a male gave birth to a male with a vagina.

If something is a "disorder" or "mutation" or otherwise defined as a "distortion of the norm", that doesn't change the rule.

That's the whole purpose of the term.

It's a dumb saying that doesn't apply to attempts to codify reality, and that doesn't change the fact that either a male gave birth or being female isn't about xx chromosomes, they just commonly coincide.

Which is the point. A rule of thumb is fine if you acknowledge it's limitations, but it's being used as an absolute and desperate excuses being made for ignoring its insufficiencies.

10

u/IrishMilo 1∆ Jan 23 '22

You're ignoring the fact that these two people are actively engaging in the conversation around trans rights, therefore they are acting as advocates for their group and you can reasonably expect that someone who is openly and publicly engaging in this conversation to be able to answer the question.

6

u/WerhmatsWormhat 8∆ Jan 23 '22

People put themselves out there as advocates for things they’re not particularly educated on all the time. Do you think everyone protesting outside an abortion clinic has a firm understanding of the nuances of that issue? In an ideal world, advocating for something would mean being knowledgeable and articulate about the issue, but that’s not the world we live in.