What is the sine qua non of womanhood?

[InSearchofGrace]

A female poster made this statement in the thread over at World News on Bruce Jenner’s début as “Caitlyn”:

Reproduction is not the sine qua non of womanhood.

As a female, this made me pause, prompting me to open this thread, because I think it is an over simplification at best that adds to great social confusion of our age.

To me, the sine qua non of womanhood is the power to nurture. Which, physically and physiologically is manifested in a woman by her ability to let her child suckle at her breast. Which is necessarily connected to reproduction.

To be clear, I am NOT saying that women unable to give birth by virtue of circumstance, accident, or as a matter of choice have little or no worth, so it is not necessary to go there.

What do you think?

If that poster finds her way into this thread, she is most welcome to expand on her statement.
,

 

[beleg]

No, but having two X chromosomes is, which our confused friend Bruce does not have.

 

[Thomas_White]

A female poster made this statement in the thread over at World News on Bruce Jenner’s début as “Caitlyn”:

As a female, this made me pause, prompting me to open this thread, because I think it is an over simplification at best that adds to great social confusion of our age.

To me, the sine qua non of womanhood is the power to nurture. Which, physically and physiologically is manifested in a woman by her ability to let her child suckle at her breast. Which is necessarily connected to reproduction.

To be clear, I am NOT saying that women unable to give birth by virtue of circumstance, accident, or as a matter of choice have little or no worth, so it is not necessary to go there.

What do you think?

If that poster finds her way into this thread, she is most welcome to expand on her statement.
,

Agreed. I think there is certain to be a strong response from women who are birth-women (can’t believe I felt I had to use that term) to biological males defining womanhood. Biological males do not live in female bodies and can have no real knowledge of the experience of a being a woman. They just can’t.

 

[Ignatius]

Men have one X chromosome and one Y chromosome, women have two copies of the X chromosome.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Men have one X chromosome and one Y chromosome, women have two copies of the X chromosome.

This definition is deeply flawed and limited. For example, Klinefelter’s males are XXY.

 

[DavidFilmer]

This definition is deeply flawed and limited.

And it’s not strictly correct. Women don’t have two copies of the X chromosome (which seems to imply they are identical); they have two distinctly different X chromosomes.

 

[laircy]

This definition is deeply flawed and limited. For example, Klinefelter’s males are XXY.

The exception does not make the rule. Klinefelter’s is a genetic disorder.

 

[Rhubarb]

But one counter-example refutes the argument.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

A female poster made this statement in the thread over at World News on Bruce Jenner’s début as “Caitlyn”:

As a female, this made me pause, prompting me to open this thread, because I think it is an over simplification at best that adds to great social confusion of our age.

To me, the sine qua non of womanhood is the power to nurture. Which, physically and physiologically is manifested in a woman by her ability to let her child suckle at her breast. Which is necessarily connected to reproduction.

To be clear, I am NOT saying that women unable to give birth by virtue of circumstance, accident, or as a matter of choice have little or no worth, so it is not necessary to go there.

What do you think?

If that poster finds her way into this thread, she is most welcome to expand on her statement.
,

Well “womenhood” is an abstraction isn’t it.

I only know of individual flesh and blood, 3D females whose goals in life can be whatever they choose. Remaining single and pursuing a career is perfectly legitimate.

Loving God and neighbour can be done in a myriad of different material ways and states of life.

As Aquinas rightly stated, reproduction is a duty of the species NOT the individual.

 

[laircy]

But one counter-example refutes the argument.

It is still accurate to say “All men are rational” since rational animal is the definition of man (“man” referring to both males and females of course). That doesn’t mean you can just be like, “but what about the mentally disabled.” They still have the same essence as a rational animal, but are deprived by accident of what is supposed to be there.

 

[Rhubarb]

It is still accurate to say “All men are rational” since rational animal is the definition of man (“man” referring to both males and females of course). That doesn’t mean you can just be like, “but what about the mentally disabled.” They still have the same essence as a rational animal, but are deprived by accident of what is supposed to be there.

Maybe? You’re describing a contradiction in logic. If all men are rational, and yet some men are not rational, by reductio ad absurdum not all men are rational.

Show me the essence of womanhood. It’s been suggested that the essence of womanhood is “nurturing” and all goes along with it. Yet some women, by accident or by deliberate action, lack this quality. By the very definition these women therefore do not have the essence of womanhood. How can you limit the discussion to leave these cases out without that move being ad hoc?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Maybe? You’re describing a contradiction in logic. If all men are rational, and yet some men are not rational, by reductio ad absurdum not all men are rational.

Show me the essence of womanhood. It’s been suggested that the essence of womanhood is “nurturing” and all goes along with it. Yet some women, by accident or by deliberate action, lack this quality. By the very definition these women therefore do not have the essence of womanhood. How can you limit the discussion to leave these cases out without that move being ad hoc?

I would suggest that the elements are there in women who by accident or choice do not demonstrate nurturing quality. They just don’t harness the power or tap into the ability.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Well “womenhood” is an abstraction isn’t it.

I only know of individual flesh and blood, 3D females whose goals in life can be whatever they choose. **Remaining single and pursuing a career is perfectly legitimate.

Loving God and neighbour can be done in a myriad of different material ways and states of life.**

As Aquinas rightly stated, reproduction is a duty of the species NOT the individual.

Indeed, as with Oprah Winfrey.

And Mother Teresa.

Accordingly, Oprah has a life partner but she and Mother Teresa both chose the unmarried state and did not actually give birth to children. Their mothering and nurturing qualities still surfaced in their work.

Not everyone in my all girl class in Catholic school opted for marriage and motherhood. The opportunity to find a mate has not come up, although the possibility for a late marriage in the future is there. Most of the decidedly singles are successful and have meaningful careers. Yet, the drive to nurture is evident in their endeavors. One of them, a physician, adopted a male child and is raising him without a husband. One heads a school for poor and disadvantaged girls.
,

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

Agreed. I think there is certain to be a strong response from women who are birth-women (can’t believe I felt I had to use that term) to biological males defining womanhood. Biological males do not live in female bodies and can have no real knowledge of the experience of a being a woman. They just can’t.

Agreed completely. Men are men, women are women, whether they “feel” like it or not. Bruce does not and will never have a uterus and ovaries. He will never have the true essence of being a woman, because he isn’t a woman. He has only undergone hormones and surgery to appear as a woman, and even his so-called womanly appearance still looks more manly to me. That’s the way it always is with these transgenders. They’ve totally ruined themselves, and they’ve made themselves an eerie combination of both sexes. I’m not being “mean” or “intolerant.” I’m merely stating fact. The truth sometimes hurts, I’m sorry.

 

[ynotzap]

I think it is the DNA without it you will not have a man or woman The DNA contains all the programing that will determine all that a person will be physically. It’s all physical, the soul has no sex that is the cause of the body’s existence. Woman is body and soul. The soul activates the programing found in the DNA.

 

[laircy]

Maybe? You’re describing a contradiction in logic. If all men are rational, and yet some men are not rational, by reductio ad absurdum not all men are rational.

Show me the essence of womanhood. It’s been suggested that the essence of womanhood is “nurturing” and all goes along with it. Yet some women, by accident or by deliberate action, lack this quality. By the very definition these women therefore do not have the essence of womanhood. How can you limit the discussion to leave these cases out without that move being ad hoc?

It might make more sense to qualify “all men are rational animals” as “all men are those animals which by nature are supposed to possess rationality, but might possibly be deprived of it by a failure in the process of development.” Failure implies that there was a supposed correct development, which would always result in rationality.

Biologically, the essence of womanhood is supposed to be determined by having two X chromosomes as the sex chromosomes. The secondary sex characteristics and hormones are controlled by the DNA. “Nurturing” might be a feminine personal characteristic but that does not necessarily mean every woman is nurturing and every nurturing person is a woman. But it is still associated with women because physically women are nurturing, and tend to reflect that trait in their personalities.

 

[ynotzap]

I think it is the DNA without it you will not have a man or woman The DNA contains all the programing that will determine all that a person will be physically. It’s all physical, the soul has no sex that is the cause of the body’s existence. Woman is body and soul. The soul activates the programing found in the DNA.

Chromosomes are DNA wrapped around protein to form a X shaped structure
A) Chromosomes are made of DNA
B) Chromosomes are found in the nucleus of a cell
C) Sections of chromosomes are called genes

DNA-deoxyribonucleic acid (it is the genetic code that contains all the info needed to build and maintain an organ.
XX chromosomes determine sex and is made of DNA

 

[laircy]

I’d also like to add that blindness and being an eyeless creature are not the same thing. Blindness is the deprivation of sight where it is supposed to be, (damaged or deformed eyes) but if an animal was never meant to have eyes (is a jellyfish, for example) then it should not be called “blind.” Likewise with rationality and humans.
Just explaining why it’s not a contradiction.