GC: Why can't the words man and woman be defined as something other than "adult human male" and "adult human female"? And why is it false to say "men can have vaginas/uteruses/etc and women can have penises"?

submitted by AllInOne from self.GCdebatesQT

I found a QT thread that caught my attention, the thread was long so I only took a screenshot of just a few comments; https://imgur.com/Ms83emy

If you look at the screenshot, you will see these comments;

"Male" describes both sex and gender. And there's no reason to be making the distinction other than to be transphobic

Negative. Male and female describe sexual dimorphism. Man and woman are gender roles. Thus, you can have male men, female men, male women and female women. OP asked if gay men are curious about female men. My answer is still: No, gay men (male or female) are not curious about female men (gay or otherwise.)

"male men, female men, male women and female women", so they have separated woman from female and man from male. They are saying man does not mean male and woman does not mean female.

I am confused in any case, what are GCs' counters to those TQ arguments?

I also have 3 more questions.

Q1) Do male and female refer to both "gender" and sex? Why can't words such as "male"/"man" and "female"/"woman" refer to both "gender" as well as one's sex?

Q2) Why can't the words man and woman be defined as something other than "adult human male" and "adult human female"?

Q3) One of the main TQ arguments is that men can have vaginas/uteruses/etc and women can have penises. Why is it false to say "vaginas/uteruses/etc can be male organs, penis/testes/etc can be female organs, men can have vaginas/uteruses/etc and women can have penises"?

all 26 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]littlerbear 22 insightful - 1 fun22 insightful - 0 fun23 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Because words mean things. The rest of the world is perfectly cool with 'woman' meaning adult human female and 'man' meaning adult human male. We're also cool with 'female' meaning 'having the reproductive system that allows for producing eggs and being impregnated' and 'male' meaning 'having the reproductive system that allows for producing sperm and impregnating'. Why does everyone need to change the way they use language to accommodate people with gender identity issues?

And, if the definition of 'woman' is expanded to include men who think they're women, women's rights disappear. We lose our rights to privacy, free association and all the sex-based protections we've fought for.

As for the 'male uterus' thing, it's just nonsense. Only women have uteruses, if someone has a uterus that person is female. This has nothing to do with gender identity. And, think for a second, about people who aren't trans. Think of a kid just learning about their bodies and the names for parts. If we say 'people have uteruses' this is vague to the point of meaninglessness. If we say 'some men have uteruses' this is a LIE. If we say 'only women have uteruses' this is specific and this is the truth. If we say 'women who identify as men have uteruses and women who don't identify as men have uteruses' we're also telling the truth and acknowledging gender identity without creating any unnecessary confusion.

[–][deleted] 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Why does everyone need to change the way they use language to accommodate people with gender identity issues?

IME, this is where the whole thing goes off the rails, and it all seems to circle back to psychology:

In insisting that psychological realities (gender, in part) are literally biological realities (sex)

In the high prevalence of Cluster B PDs in TRA circles -- we can't ignore that, because it literally influences how TRAs conceive "reality." Even GD and AGP affect the patient's perceptions of objective reality -- to varying degrees, but the effects are there.

Not pathologizing QT or TRA -- just asserting that where there is an established cohort of mental disorders, disordered perception and cognition about consensual reality also follows. It can't be otherwise.

[–]littlerbear 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agreed. The only people who insist that their emotional reality MUST be completely true are toddlers and narcissists or other people with serious psychological problems. The rest of us understand that we have to make compromises and that not getting what we want does not literally kill us.

[–]littlerbear 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yes. I believe narcissists have been found to have certain cognitive and intellectual deficits related to their lack of empathy. People with BPD definitely have cognitive processing issues, so do people who suffer from depression. I wouldn't be surprised if people with AGP or GD also have some cognitive problems.

Problem is, these people, whose reality orientations are skewed should not be dictating what and how the rest of us think, perceive, speak, etc. ...

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Absolutely agree.

[–]worried19 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think these people are making things way more complicated than they need to be.

Instead of "female men," why not just allow female people to dress and act however they want without implying there's some normal way for a woman to be? That used to be the goal of feminism. Why create this artificial division based on a social construct?

[–]littlerbear 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

One more question: if we can change the meaning of words to suit our own personal preferences, I should be able to call a trans woman a man, since in LB world, trans women are men. Why can't they just change the meaning of the word 'man' in their mind to suit my language needs?

[–]DogeWalker 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I am confused in any case, what are GCs' counters to those TQ arguments?

What are the TQ arguments, beyond the claim that "Man and woman are gender roles"? I don't see any reasoning beyond that. Maybe I missed some context.

My GC response to "Man and woman are gender roles" is that I disagree. I'm a native English speaker, and throughout my life, I have always heard the words woman and man used according to a person's sex. If there is evidence that those words mean "gender roles," I would very much like to see it and learn from it.

Q1) Do male and female refer to both "gender" and sex? Why can't words such as "male"/"man" and "female"/"woman" refer to both "gender" as well as one's sex?

Well, why can't words such as "male"/"man" and "female"/"woman" refer to both "salary earnings potential" as well as one's sex? I see no reason why that wouldn't work, do you?

Q2) Why can't the words man and woman be defined as something other than "adult human male" and "adult human female"?

I don't understand this question, so I pose another question in hopes of illuminating my understanding:

Why can't the word "truth" be defined as something other than conformity to fact, reality, or actuality?

I could also respond: there is no real reason why the word "woman" can't mean "male person," just as there is no real reason why the word "truth" can't mean "ice cream." So, I accept that the words woman and man can mean those things, exactly the same as the word "truth" can mean "ice cream." Sure, why not?

Q3) One of the main TQ arguments is that men can have vaginas/uteruses/etc and women can have penises. Why is it false to say "vaginas/uteruses/etc can be male organs, penis/testes/etc can be female organs, men can have vaginas/uteruses/etc and women can have penises"?

This is the TQ argument I've never understood, because it seems to short-circuit the reason why most people transition. Here's why:

If we accept that it is true that "penis/testes/etc can be female organs", etc., then shouldn't that idea be promoted to alleviate dysphoria? There could be no feeling of the body being "wrong" if both females and males are equally likely to have a penis/testes or vulva/vagina/uterus.

So, I believe the answer to "Why is it false to say "vaginas/uteruses/etc can be male organs, penis/testes/etc can be female organs, men can have vaginas/uteruses/etc and women can have penises"?" is that... trans activists don't actually believe that.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This implies that the issue is the labels man/male and woman/female when they aren't at all.

There will always be a need to have a word to describe the people who belong to the category of individuals who have xx chromosomes, and, usually, can produce ovas and get pregnant.

And there will always be some person of the category of individuals who have xy chromosomes and usually, can produce sperm and impregnate whining about the fact that he isn't included.

This isn't a question of labels, it's a question of inclusion. They want to be part of our category, and since, as I said, there will always be a need to describe our sex, they will want to use whatever word describes us.

Nowadays, that word is woman. If woman becomes a term inclusive of men in a global scale instead of how it is now, they will come for female (they already started). They have done the same for girl and lesbian. Some of them even use "cis" woman/female to describe themselves. If we end up being forced to find another term to define us, they will try to appropriate that as well.

Long story short, the word woman is not a magical arrangement of letters that grants validation, it's belonging to our category and, dare I say, putting us in place that they are looking for.

They don't want to be called women because it' s what they are, they want to be called women because it's what we are and they cannot accept to be left out. If the word stops defining us exclusively, they will lose interest and move to whatever other word we will use.

[–]theblackfleet 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You can play all the different word games till the cows come home. The reality is that there are two sexes and no matter what words you use, that will forever be the case.

[–]Jizera 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is misunderstanding of the problem. It is not about a definition or redefinition of a word. Transsexual persons want to be recognized and treated by other people as if they were of their desired sex and they are discontent and triggered by anything what somehow reminds them of what sex they really are. To hide the paradox, that they want to be recognized as sometheing they are not, and to avoid to be considered insane, they use the terms gender and gender identity, which itself are paradoxical, because they are both related and unrelated to sex. Gender and gender identity is used by them to say: Even though I am not a woman, I am a woman , because I desire and need to be a woman.

[–]SnowAssMan 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

A1) Man & woman are the combination of sex & gender. If you want gender separated from sex, that's called masculinity & femininity.

A2) because otherwise feminism wouldn't work, since communication is integral to the movement, & language is integral to communication, & terms like 'woman' are integral to discussions on topics surrounding women's issues?

A3) Male refers to the person's sex. Denying that trans people have a sex that is mismatched from their gender is denying trans people exist. The uterus remains female whether the person it belongs to identifies with female sexual organs, or with male ones. Even a foetus' uterus is female, even a corpse's is.

[–]JollyPurple 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Man & woman are the combination of sex & gender.

Is there another word for JUST adult female human? Why must woman mean sex and gender? Isn't that sexist? That's saying that any women are women because we identify with our oppression.

[–]SnowAssMan 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, woman does just mean adult human female, gender is only added as an acknowledgement of culture. I don't think it's sexist to say women are "defined" by their oppression via being socialised into femininity, since that's precisely how feminist theory describes 'woman'.

[–]DistantGlimmer 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Words can be defined as anything. No, woman does not have to mean "adult human female" in French for example "femme' is the word that means that.Of course the argument is not that TRAs want a different word for adult human females, the argument is over whether we need words at all to describe the sex class of human females. We have words for every other type of male and female animal species so it doesn't make sense why humans are the lone exception other than just to validate the feelings of males who believe they are female. Female humans are also a class that is oppressed under patriarchy and need words to describe themselves as a class. trying to define this out of existence is anti-female.

Male sex organs can't be "female" because of sexual dimorphism. The argument that "brain sex exists at all and further that any body parts attached to a body with a "female brain" are female is ridiculous, sexist, and based on pseudoscience.

Masculine and feminine are the words we use for gender.Both male/man and female/woman refer to biological sex only.

[–]uwubunny 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They're really just saying we cannot talk about sex unless it's on terms transgenders feel comfortable with.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I haven't got a GC answer for you, but I think male men, female men, male women and female women is descriptive enough and makes the distinction between sex and gender. I think the people who think gender is immutable and sex is fluid would not like it. I think GC people use 'men' and 'women' as referring to sex and gender, so it wouldn't work for them.

  1. I think male and female should only refer to sex. It's not how the words are used out in the wider world though.
  2. I think the words 'woman' and 'man' describe gender, so I need another definition but I'm fucked if I can think of one. Can you?
  3. Because it conflates sex with gender. Female men can have vaginas etc, male women can have penises. So, the organs don't change sex even if the owner has the opposite gender to usual.

[–]AllInOne[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What do you mean by "it's not how the words are used out in the wider world"? I thought male and female only refer to sex out in the wider world too? And if 'woman' and 'man' describe "gender", what do you mean by 'woman' and 'man'? Can you define "gender" and what "woman" and "man" mean to you?

Edit: Ah well, you deleted your account so I'm responding to nothing

Are there any GC here that can tell me what this TQ means by "woman" and "man" describing "gender"?

[–]Spikygrasspod 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Some feminists have claimed that 'woman' and 'man' describe social categories, not biological ones. For example, Sally Haslanger argued that a 'woman' is someone who occupies a subordinate social status on the basis of her actual or presumed femaleness. This 'revisionary' definition was supposed to help feminists find the people to whom feminism applies. I don't agree with the revisionary project, but it may help explain why some people define woman as a social role. This is different from femininity as a performance. Obviously, performing femininity will not necessary result in someone occupying a feminine social position.

[–]Spikygrasspod 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Q2. You could redefine 'man' and 'woman' to mean something else. But then you'd be changing the subject. You'd be talking about something else when most people are still talking about male and female adult humans. If you define 'woman' as 'someone with a feminine gender identity' then you're talking about different kind of person to the 'woman' who is entitled to play in women's sports, for example.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Female is a verb, the noun for adult, human female is woman. It's dehumanizing and objectifying to take the noun used to describe women away and reduce us to the verb. We have nouns that describe many mammals as adult (animal) female and adult (animal) male - like sow, queen, heifer or bull, tom, boar. Not because those animals identify with the social role of the sexed animal, but because it's a shortcut to describing the biological category in question.

[–]divingrightintowork 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Here's a question for you - what is fundamental to men that women can't have, what is fundamental to women that men can't have?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

(GC) I'd counter that according to its own logic:

A1) Yes, they refer to both. Per core QT as I understand it, sex is biological, while gender is tripartite: a social construct, an aspect of the psyche, and a performed behavior.

A2) Because the noun describes the body, whereas the adjective can describe the body (sex), cultural norms (behavior), or the psyche (identity).

A3) Because biology. If we're talking SRS, then yes, natal women/men can have simulacra of the other sex's biology to help their gender identity better conform with their biological sex. But since sex is materially determined at conception, it wouldn't be a material change.

IMO, when QT thought stays close to its core concepts (sex is biological, gender is multifaceted and partly psychological), it's logically consistent. When QT strays from that core and starts making assertions along the lines of women = men in broad stokes, that's when the logic falls apart.

[–]levoyageur718293 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think it is a principle of TRA that whatever you call the actual sex categories - whatever word you come up with to replace what we know as "man" and "woman" - the TRAs consider that category unimportant. Names notwithstanding, they want the vast majority of women to be complacent in gender identity so that male TRAs can infiltrate them. If everyone were actually enlightened, the way they claim to want, there'd be no passing and thus no infiltration.

[–]branks4nothing 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Because the endpoint means that in practice, everything is up for grabs.

[–]maldita-sudakafeminist-woman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Where did that person got the idea that "man and woman are gender roles"? That person has been attending the wrong biology classes. The gender term is masculine and feminine, masculinity and femininity. Then you have "effeminate boy" and "boyish girl", which are hurtful terms for children who doesn't fit gender stereotypes.

Last question is obvious biology mate.