There was an attempt as a non-circular definition. https://i.imgur.com/gQN05s0.png

submitted by M1GarandDad from medium.com

all 11 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]ClassroomPast6178 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

Woman:

The social category associated with being an adult female person in a society; a gender.

b — Someone who perceives themself as belonging to the social category associated with adult female people in their society, in terms of their self-perception and internal sense of belonging to that gender, independent of whether they would be externally perceived as belonging to that gender according to their society’s conventions; a gender identity.

Trouble with the (b) definition is that it makes unicorns real too, and pretty much every other mystical creature. It’s a definition that defines everything into existence.

[–]LordoftheFliesAmeri-kin 2.0. Pronouns: MegaWhite/SuperStraight/UltraPatriarchy 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It’s a definition that defines everything into existence.

Which is why they love it. It gives them a position from which to argue the validity of their bullshit that nobody sane can actually refute.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The whole shit is confusing because they don't stick to their defined terms and nobody knows what anyone is talking about.

I'd say gender isn't "real" it's a high level concept that is made up more or less by humans that do want to categorize things into masculine feminine or neutral categories. But that's hardly an agreed upon definition.

Whereas sex is a physically undeniable biological concept that is absolutely binary (in humans, you tell me amoebas don't have gender I'm going to ask you for a mitosis demonstration).

You want to describe the feminine "gender" as "that which is commonly associated as clothing, behaviors, mannerisms, etc associated generally with the female sex" I'd probably agree. And I'd also have no problem whatsoever with the concept of a "feminine male".

The main issue comes down to the denial of physical reality and demanding access to sex segregated spaces, which aren't segregated because of "transphobia" but because of the biological reality of sex and the fact that women can get pregnant when faced with unwanted sexual activity and men simply don't. And the reason for sexual segregation here is mainly to prevent unwanted pregnancy and to prevent women (and to a lesser extent men) from having to deal with sexual predation.

If a man wants to wear a dress and makeup whatever. If a woman wants to dress like a man whatever. People should have the freedom to express themselves as they wish. That doesn't mean they should be allowed to access sex segregated spaces.

[–]M1GarandDad[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There's also the complication that, by their own logic, "the right to X of your gender identity" is effectively "the right to X of your choice", because gender identity is distinct from gender expression.

Even TRAs have to concede that verbal declarations of gender are part of the latter. They even use the term "chosen gender" in the context of public policy.

Any clinical recognition of gender is a joke, as TRAs consistently push to lower the bar for a gender dysphoria diagnosis (when they're not outright saying you don't need to have dysphoria to be trans) and we've seen plenty of troons advising other troons to lie to their doctors.

As long as gender identity remains an unfalsifiable quasi-spiritual Gnosis, the category of people TRAs think are women (anyone who identifies "in good faith" as a woman) is not the category of people TRAs think are entitled to women's spaces (anyone who decides to use the English word "woman" to describe themself at that moment), so these are two separate issues.

You can agree that trans women are women (as J. K. Rowling once did) and still defend sex-segregated spaces, or vice versa.

But if TRAs addressed these issues separately, they wouldn't be able to fall back on thought-terminating cliches like "my existence is not up for debate!!" when arguing for replacing sex-segregated spaces with verbal-declaration-segregated spaces.

If they completely detach the "essence" of womanhood from any reality outside their own minds, be it natural or social reality (or even the wildly varying meanings of womanhood inside other TRA's minds), they detach it from the social standard of woman-only spaces, they can't have it both ways.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You have a right to say what you want about yourself I think. Regardless of whether it's true or not, that's not really the purview of government to police speech in such a way. And that does extend to your right to self expression via clothing. But that doesn't mean that you have the right to be free from criticism. Hell if I decide I don't want to associate with anyone who wears green I can do that. You can't force social inclusion it just leads to more problems. Kids that don't like each other who are forced to *be friends" only leads to resentment and bullying.

The issue is essentially people trying to bully society into accepting what is pointedly anti-social behavior. And well self expression one way or another shouldn't matter squat to government or anything. You can say "I am a woman" all you want but that doesn't mean you are a woman or should be in the eyes of the state. How far down the rabbit hole of self identification do we wish to go? I identify as a sober individual officer the last 16 beers I had before getting in this car are irrelevant.

I identify as a billionaire and the bank is comitting a genocide on me for not letting me withdrawal.

https://youtu.be/z6qN4JdylXM

It's all nonsense. But the issue mostly boils down not to the self identification but the idea that you can somehow make others go along with it. It's total nonsense.

[–]LyingSpirit472 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Trouble with the (b) definition is that it makes unicorns real too, and pretty much every other mystical creature. It’s a definition that defines everything into existence.

Well there you have it, you think it's a bug when they say it's a feature.

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

You'd think that the very act of struggling to pin down and precisely define what is commonly repeated as obvious would be indicative that it isn't and that you need a better grasp on your own politics. (also see the right re: "woke")

TRAs can't bring themselves to define woman accurately because they already know in their minds what one is, and they know it isn't socially kosher, thus anything they come up with is automatically an attempt to distance themselves from that knowledge, done in a way that draws a path back to their existing understanding of it.

So they still think of a woman as a biological XX human being, and really they think of gender as that too, and femininity is just how well someone embodies those female biological traits, but they can't say that out loud, so they say "what others may think" or "what society may seem to percieve" as though they aren't representative of it, but outside it, an impartial third party just taking a record.

This is all doubly funnier when you look at any troon and their exaggerated, sexist take on the opposite sex as a series of porny signifiers.

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

That's still a circular definition though, they've just used more words to obscure that it's circular. The secondary definition just boils down to "Anyone who identifies with traits commonly associated with women, even if they don't embody those traits". So, anyone who identifies as a woman.

[–]M1GarandDad[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm actually making a serious effort to find an unambiguous formal definition of the term "gender identity", backed up by trans and trans-positive sources, that won't immediately be dismissed as a transphobic strawman. Even if it turns out to be a circular definition, I'd like to be able to say "look, the trans community agrees on this definition, this is what trans people actually believe" to the trans person I have the misfortune of arguing with.

A fool's errand, I know, but it's far better than the Romans 1:20 non-argument of asserting the other side knows I'm right and they're just lying because they're evil.

[–]LyingSpirit472 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But you forget- in many cases, these are cluster-B fuckheads. Even if you have 100% proof literally every member of the trans community agrees with it and it's what is believed, that one person will say "well, I disagree so I win"- and they WILL lie and say they don't if they have to- and they'll say their claim matters because, as a cluster-B, they will believe themselves to be king/queen of the trans community and what they say goes.

[–]clownworlddropout 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, let's bend over backwards to attempt (and fail) at making the definition of woman include men so as not to be "transphobic."

"Transphobia" is like blasphemy, it only exists if you're a member of the cult, the rest of us are just out here observing reality.