What is a Woman?

[Arizona_Mike]

i just read this article from The New Yorker: newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/04/woman-2, about the deep-rooted enmity between two “progressive” political movements - the “transgender rights” movement, which requires that all elements of society and culture now bend a knee to the total inclusion of people who identify as the opposite sex (or subjecting them to the risk of a MoveOn petition), and the radical feminist movement, which sees transgenderism as insidious male privilege asserting its rights to steal the mantle of womanhood, or wymynhood, or something.

This has led to the bizarre spectacle of radical feminist women who consider themselves part of the far Left being subjected to far Left boycotts, loss of speaking engagements, and vandalism for not being Far Left enough anymore, because they do not consider “transgendered” women as real women.

It has even led to conflicts in Satan’s abortion-mill industry:

The members of the board of the New York Abortion Access Fund, an all-volunteer group that helps to pay for abortions for those who can’t afford them, are mostly young women; Alison Turkos, the group’s co-chair, is twenty-six. In May, they voted unanimously to stop using the word “women” when talking about people who get pregnant, so as not to exclude trans men. “We recognize that people who identify as men can become pregnant and seek abortions,” the group’s new Statement of Values [sic] says.

A Change.org petition asks NARAL and Planned Parenthood to adopt similarly gender-inclusive language. It specifically criticizes the hashtag #StandWithTexasWomen, which ricocheted around Twitter during State Senator Wendy Davis’s filibuster against an anti-abortion bill in her state, and the phrase “Trust Women,” which was the slogan of George Tiller, the doctor and abortion provider who was murdered in Wichita in 2009.

This must be confusing even to the Father of Lies.

Aside from the very unChristian feelings of schadenfreude the whole situation causes, the article made me feel…really, really old, actually. There is a whole new alien vocabulary one has to learn to understand the jargon that is used in discussing these conflicts: “cisgendered,” which is anyone who is not transgendered (i.e, those who used to be called “normal”); TERFs, which are “Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists,” a derogatory transgender term for those radical feminists (or “RadFems”) who do not consider men who are transgendered women as real women (and who are now frequently the targets of on-line death threats by some transgendered people); “Detransitioners,” who are those who considered themselves transgendered but now no longer do, and are reverting back to their original sexual identity, and who are considered “survivors” of genital mutilation by the RadFems, a definition which enrages anyone who is not cisgendered; and non-gender specific pronouns now in vogue at liberal colleges, by which students can elect to be identified as “ze,” “ou,” “hir,” “they,” or even “it"; and “womyn-born womyn” (i.e.," women").

I feel like Buck Rogers, who fell into suspended animation and who then awoke in a new and unfathomable future. I know that to grow old is to become a stranger in one’s own country, but this is ridiculous.

Does anyone else feel like moving to the most remote corner of the nation and hiding in an anchorite’s cave in the hopes the nation comes to its senses?

 

[tuscany]

**As a country, we are now too stupid to exist.

Sure Mike, I’ll join you in the cave of " What Was". **

 

[Petaro]

i just read this article from The New Yorker: newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/04/woman-2, about the deep-rooted enmity between two “progressive” political movements - the “transgender rights” movement, which requires that all elements of society and culture now bend a knee to the total inclusion of people who identify as the opposite sex (or subjecting them to the risk of a MoveOn petition), and the radical feminist movement, which sees transgenderism as insidious male privilege asserting its rights to steal the mantle of womanhood, or wymynhood, or something
This must be confusing even to the Father of Lies.

Aside from the very unChristian feelings of schadenfreude the whole situation causes, the article made me feel…really, really old, actually. There is a whole new alien vocabulary one has to learn to understand the jargon that is used in discussing these conflicts: “cisgendered,” which is anyone who is not transgendered (i.e, those who used to be called “normal”); TERFs, which are “Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists,” a derogatory transgender term for those radical feminists (or “RadFems”) who do not consider men who are transgendered women as real women (and who are now frequently the targets of on-line death threats by some transgendered people); “Detransitioners,” who are those who considered themselves transgendered but now no longer do, and are reverting back to their original sexual identity, and who are considered “survivors” of genital mutilation by the RadFems, a definition which enrages anyone who is not cisgendered; and non-gender specific pronouns now in vogue at liberal colleges, by which students can elect to be identified as “ze,” “ou,” “hir,” “they,” or even “it"; and “womyn-born womyn” (i.e.," women").

I feel like Buck Rogers, who fell into suspended animation and who then awoke in a new and unfathomable future. I know that to grow old is to become a stranger in one’s own country, but this is ridiculous.

Does anyone else feel like moving to the most remote corner of the nation and hiding in an anchorite’s cave in the hopes the nation comes to its senses?

I am also amused and confused by the linguistic calisthenics of these poor confused people. I, thankfully have never met any of these people personally, nor have any of my friends as far as I know. There really is a new class structure building, where the average middle class person living in the suburbs and raising a few kids never really come across this group, (unless your kids are going astray.)
I retired back to the Shire a lo g time ago mentally, and prefer it that way.

 

[Auntie_A]

Take me to the Shire, the cave, the hermitage. Pray for the kids and for all of us.

 

[ArchAngeles]

This must be confusing even to the Father of Lies.

I think Satan is on vacation. His work is being done for him by the left.

I feel like Buck Rogers, who fell into suspended animation and who then awoke in a new and unfathomable future. I know that to grow old is to become a stranger in one’s own country, but this is ridiculous.

Me too. But the worse it gets the more I love the Catholic Church!

Does anyone else feel like moving to the most remote corner of the nation and hiding in an anchorite’s cave in the hopes the nation comes to its senses?

Me too. I have a small cabin in the mountains and feel like staying up there permanently anymore.

 

[JimG]

Reading the article is a little disconcerting. What a morass of sexual confusion! Now it seems that there is a division within feminism wherein some feminists are considered hateful if they do not accept transgered persons born male, as women, holding events limited to “womyn-born-womyn.”

On the other hand, many universities routinely ask students which gender pronoun they prefer, including such choices as “ze,” “ou,” “hir,” “they,” or “it.” And many colleges heath plans include coverage of gender-reassignment surgery.

 

[guanophore]

… not being Far Left enough anymore, because they do not consider “transgendered” women as real women.

You know, I never thought of that. It is true that a transgendered person could become pregnant…

This must be confusing even to the Father of Lies.

On the contrary, I think he is having a veritable field day.

There is a whole new alien vocabulary one has to learn to understand the jargon that is used in discussing these conflicts: “cisgendered,” which is anyone who is not transgendered (i.e, those who used to be called “normal”);

Yes it is difficult to keep up with the terminology. LGBT has now expanded to LGBTQQI is and growing.

“survivors” of genital mutilation by the RadFems, a definition which enrages anyone who is not cisgendered; and non-gender specific

Of all the categories, these probably have the most valid complaint. In the past, it was customary for the physician to choose “one” of the sexes when a child was born intersex (both sets of organs - historically called hermaphrodites) and as often as not it was a mistake. This does not have to happen anymore, as we can now look at the genetic and hormonal elements, rather than just the genatalia.

I feel like Buck Rogers, who fell into suspended animation and who then awoke in a new and unfathomable future. I know that to grow old is to become a stranger in one’s own country, but this is ridiculous.

Does anyone else feel like moving to the most remote corner of the nation and hiding in an anchorite’s cave in the hopes the nation comes to its senses?

Yes, but you know it won’t work. We have to continue to be light and salt to the culture, even though we may end up being snuffed out in the process.

 

[JimG]

. . . .
Of all the categories, these probably have the most valid complaint. In the past, it was customary for the physician to choose “one” of the sexes when a child was born intersex (both sets of organs - historically called hermaphrodites) and as often as not it was a mistake. This does not have to happen anymore, as we can now look at the genetic and hormonal elements, rather than just the genatalia.

But the woman in the article who was complaining of ‘testosterone poisoning,’ was one who freely chose to undergo sex reassignment surgery, then regretted it, and changed back, and now opposes such surgery.

 

[Pug]

That particular conflict of beliefs does seem inevitable if you sit down and think about what each side thinks. I want to retreat to a cave, too, but I am somewhat worried that lack of action may mean I won’t have anywhere peaceful to retire and powder my nose at work.

 

[vz71]

I checked the thread out since the title caught my attention.
I figured there would be philosophy and a few songs from Tom Jones or Billy Joel.

Instead.
.
.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

A woman is a human being with a vagina.

 

[JimG]

A woman is a human being with a vagina.

But of course that leaves room for debate, as is noted in the article. The big controversy is over “women” who were not born women, but were born male and have been surgically reclassified. It is those that some feminists will not accept as women, and which is causing the big fight.

 

[amrin]

I’m sorry I just couldn’t stop laughing while reading the post…

A women IS and always WILL BE a person who is born with two of the same kind of sex chromosome (XX), not someone who decided to mutilate his body so he could call himself a “woman”, even in the event of the technology advancing and allowing a born male to turn to female by altering their DNA he would still have been a male originally.And then I could say they were sex mutants.

In my opinion, let the people do whatever they want with their lives… God is watching… actually he already knows everything doesn’t He?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I’m sorry I just couldn’t stop laughing while reading the post…

A women IS and always WILL BE a person who is born with two of the same kind of sex chromosome (XX), not someone who decided to mutilate his body so he could call himself a “woman”, even in the event of the technology advancing and allowing a born male to turn to female by altering their DNA he would still have been a male originally.And then I could say they were sex mutants.

In my opinion, let the people do whatever they want with their lives… God is watching… actually he already knows everything doesn’t He?

About that…

Context: We report herein a remarkable family in which the mother of a woman with 46,XY complete gonadal dysgenesis was found to have a 46,XY karyotype in peripheral lymphocytes, mosaicism in cultured skin fibroblasts (80% 46,XY and 20% 45,X) and a predominantly 46,XY karyotype in the ovary (93% 46,XY and 6% 45,X).

Patients: A 46,XY mother who developed as a normal woman underwent spontaneous puberty, reached menarche, menstruated regularly, experienced two unassisted pregnancies, and gave birth to a 46,XY daughter with complete gonadal dysgenesis.

Results: Evaluation of the Y chromosome in the daughter and both parents revealed that the daughter inherited her Y chromosome from her father. Molecular analysis of the genes SOX9, SF1, DMRT1, DMRT3, TSPYL, BPESC1, DHH, WNT4, SRY, and DAX1 revealed normal male coding sequences in both the mother and daughter. An extensive family pedigree across four generations revealed multiple other family members with ambiguous genitalia and infertility in both phenotypic males and females, and the mode of inheritance of the phenotype was strongly suggestive of X-linkage.

Conclusions: The range of phenotypes observed in this unique family suggests that there may be transmission of a mutation in a novel sex-determining gene or in a gene that predisposes to chromosomal mosaicism.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190741/

As scientists begin to search for chimeras systematically — rather than waiting for them to turn up in puzzling medical tests — they’re finding them in a remarkably high fraction of people. In 2012, Canadian scientists performed autopsies on the brains of 59 women. They found neurons with Y chromosomes in 63 percent of them. The neurons likely developed from cells originating in their sons.

In The International Journal of Cancer in August, Eugen Dhimolea of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and colleagues reported that male cells can also infiltrate breast tissue. When they looked for Y chromosomes in samples of breast tissue, they found it in 56 percent of the women they investigated.

nytimes.com/2013/09/17/science/dna-double-take.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

 

[Oreoracle]

I’m a math major and I have to say that I find myself asking this question in some of my classes. Women need to get more involved in the sciences.

Anyway, language is a matter of convention. If a man wants to be called a woman, I can accommodate that. However, in a situation in which the biological differences between men and women become relevant, I will treat them according to their biology. Simple.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Anyway, language is a matter of convention.

To paraphrase A Princess Bride, “you keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

You have an idiosyncratic definition of “convention”. Among philosophers of language, one may not simply use a word according to one’s own fancy and create a convention. There is no such thing as a private language (hence we call it an “idiolect” ).

From plato.stanford.edu/entries/convention/ :

This objection sometimes accompanies another: that Lewis overlooks the essentially normative character of conventions. The idea is that conventions concern not just how people actually behave but also how they should behave. In other words, conventions are regularities not (merely) de facto, but de jure. For instance, if there is a convention that people stand a certain distance from one another when conversing, then it seems natural to say that people should stand that distance when conversing.

It may be wise, in practical terms, to call a man a woman. And transgenderism is sometimes rooted psychologically in ways that matter. But convention doesn’t enter into it. A word doesn’t mean whatever I say it means. Humpty Dumpty was wrong.

 

[Oreoracle]

You misunderstood what I meant by “convention”. Conventions aren’t used to introduce arbitrary classifications, that much is correct. They are meant to say “for the purpose of this particular application of language, it is pragmatic to use this term to denote this concept”.

As for the private language argument, the problem is avoided because I can share the definition of the conventional term I have in mind. Thus it isn’t “private” in the sense that linguists mean. The distinction between private and public isn’t one of acceptance of the term’s usage, but the knowledge of what it means.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You misunderstood what I meant by “convention”. Conventions aren’t used to introduce arbitrary classifications, that much is correct. They are meant to say “for the purpose of this particular application of language, it is pragmatic to use this term to denote this concept”.

I don’t agree. Conventions just involve the ordinary application of certain words to certain concepts. They’re pragmatic in the sense that they are needed for communication, but when one decides to break with convention (to call a man a “woman”) the pragmatic decision there is not governed by the convention at all. It violates the convention – perhaps with a good reason.

But conventions latch words onto concepts quite firmly, so that they could never explain (in themselves) why you would ever call a man a woman.

 

[Oreoracle]

But conventions latch words onto concepts quite firmly, so that they could never explain (in themselves) why you would ever call a man a woman.

But we never expect words to explain in themselves why they are used as they are. That’s what definitions are for.

This is reminiscent of the discussion we had a few days ago. If you and I use the same term differently, then either 1) we are using the same definition of the term, but one of us is wrong, or 2) the application of the term depends on the subject using it, or 3) we are using different definitions of the term.

If (3) is the case, then the solution is that we simply explain what we mean to each other like rational adults. We don’t childishly insist that our own definitions are somehow objectively correct. I think 90% of all philosophical debates begin because someone believes their definition is the “right” one.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

But we never expect words to explain in themselves why they are used as they are. That’s what definitions are for.

This is reminiscent of the discussion we had a few days ago. If you and I use the same term differently, then either 1) we are using the same definition of the term, but one of us is wrong, or 2) the application of the term depends on the subject using it, or 3) we are using different definitions of the term.

If (3) is the case, then the solution is that we simply explain what we mean to each other like rational adults. We don’t childishly insist that our own definitions are somehow objectively correct. I think 90% of all philosophical debates begin because someone believes their definition is the “right” one.

OK, I agree with all this. My point had just been I thought your first post in this thread was a bit sloppy, in terms of phrasing. I may be wrong about that. (I’ve been wrong before, once. Or maybe twice. I forget.)

But I am determined to figure out exactly how language works, and I always like to find people who show a similar interest. You’re such a person, happily enough.