4 ms·

> "there is no distinction between biological women and trans women," There is no category of women that is entirely identical, where you couldn't distinguish

> "there is no distinction between biological women and trans women," There is no category of women that is entirely identical, where you couldn't distinguish between them. Some AFAB women can't give birth. Some of them have more androgynous bodies. Some of them are black. Some of them have different levels of estrogen, or grow up in different social circles that impose different expectations about how they should act, or provide different opportunities. Nobody is saying that AFAB women don't have different experiences than trans women, any more than anyone is saying that Black women don't have different experiences than white women. Womanhood has always been a broad category, and there has never been a point where you could accurately say that there are no distinctions between the subcategories within womanhood. If TERFs believe there is a fundamental quality that makes them indistinguishable from every other woman, then they are being absurd. Even if you ignore trans women, that world doesn't exist.

slibhb 5y ago
Did you read my post? I addressed all of this very directly. To quote myself: > When you talk about "this Goldilocks zone of womanhood," I think you've rediscovering one of the oldest philosophical discoveries: mental concepts and ideas (in this case "woman") do not apply perfectly to the world of appearences. But this does not mean we can jettison concepts and ideas altogether. In fact they seem necessary. So the fact that we cannot seem to come up with a perfect criterion for defining "biological woman" does not mean that we can dispense with that category. So, regardless of whether we can specify criteria by which we can decide whether or not someone is a biological woman, the essential concept of "biological woman" seems to me (and to gender critical feminists) to be indispensible. To me, because it allows us to provide a good (though not perfect) answer to the question "where do babies come from?" and to gender critical feminists because they view the concept as central to their political/philosophical project. In fact, we can use your method of argument to demolish any category or concept. Take death for instance. How do we define death? By what criteria can we say anything is dead? Take life. By what criteria can we say something is alive? In fact we can't answer these questions perfectly and this is well known. But I don't see any use in getting rid of concepts like life and death which seem central to how we all understand the world. Along the same lines, I don't think we can dispense with "biological woman". And while all of this may seem "absurd" to you, terms like "AFAB" seems "absurd" to me.
- danShumway 5y ago
  > So the fact that we cannot seem to come up with a perfect criterion for defining "biological woman" does not mean that we can dispense with that category. Right. But nobody is asking you to dispense of the category of women, what we're doing is we're agreeing with you that the category is fuzzy and we're saying that genitalia and sex assignment at birth do not clearly designate identity. Nor are we getting rid of the category of cisgender and/or AFAB women. Trans women are not (and have never claimed to be) biologically identical to AFAB women. If trans women were claiming that they were biologically identical to women, then many of them wouldn't be taking estrogen. They are very aware about their biology :) But acknowledging the fuzziness of women as a category overall means regularly reassessing our social norms about how women are expected to act and what their bodies are expected to look like. This is especially true in instances where we see people who are sharing a lot of experiences with other women. Many trans women know what it's like to be catcalled. They know what it's like to be discriminated against at their jobs. Their experiences are not identical to everyone else's, in the same way that women's experiences in these areas are not all identical depending on their backgrounds/bodies/environments. But there is enough overlap that it is useful to group them together under the banner of womanhood. Because there isn't a perfect criterion for "woman", and part of feminism is critically examining biases about what hoops people need to jump through to be considered an "acceptable" woman -- regardless of whether those hoops are set up by men, or by other women. > To me, because it allows us to provide a fairly good answer to the question "where do babies come from?" Well, except for infertile women, who are fully woman and fully valid regardless of their ability to have children. > and to gender critical feminists because they view the concept as cental to their political/philosophical project. I disagree that trans women mean that these political/philosophical goals can't be achieved. To me, this is just gatekeeping, I don't see a real motivating need for this kind of exclusion. Trans women do not have an agenda to take away women's rights, many of these people are feminists themselves. > And while this may seem "absurd" to you, terms like "AFAB" seems "absurd" to me. The absurdity is not that you have different opinions about the definition of a woman, the absurdity is your implication that acknowledging the womanhood of trans women is tantamount to saying that their experiences are completely identical to cisgender, AFAB women, or that it's destroying some kind of sacred bond. That position is absurd because cisgender, AFAB women do not have identical experiences with each other. You wrote: > If it means "there is no distinction between biological women and trans women," that seems wrong to me and to the vast majority of people. That would be an absurd thing for anyone to claim about any attribute of womanhood, and nobody is doing so.
syspec 5y ago
Some AFAB women can't give birth. Some of them have more androgynous bodies. Some of them are black. How on earth did being black make it on that list?! Wtf
- danShumway 5y ago
  The way that black women experience sexism is often tangibly different than the way that white women experience sexism. Racial inequality can compound and complicate other inequalities. I think it's important in feminist circles to understand that the Black community can be affected by sexism in ways that white women might not experience. You can say the same about things like income. The sexism that a professional in an office job experiences can occasionally differ in subtle ways from the sexism that a blue-collar worker experiences. Not to say one is better or worse, just the way that inequality manifests is often contextually dependent.
- empthought 5y ago
  Because this entire ideology is deeply sexist and racist, and they consider black women to be less gender-conforming than white women.
  - danShumway 5y ago
    > to be less gender-conforming No, but I do understand that the way society treats Black women is often different than the way society treats white women, and I understand that being a white woman does not automatically give someone complete insight into the struggles that Black women face.

slibhb 5y ago

Did you read my post? I addressed all of this very directly. To quote myself: > When you talk about "this Goldilocks zone of womanhood," I think you've rediscovering one of the oldest philosophical discoveries: mental concepts and ideas (in this case "woman") do not apply perfectly to the world of appearences. But this does not mean we can jettison concepts and ideas altogether. In fact they seem necessary. So the fact that we cannot seem to come up with a perfect criterion for defining "biological woman" does not mean that we can dispense with that category. So, regardless of whether we can specify criteria by which we can decide whether or not someone is a biological woman, the essential concept of "biological woman" seems to me (and to gender critical feminists) to be indispensible. To me, because it allows us to provide a good (though not perfect) answer to the question "where do babies come from?" and to gender critical feminists because they view the concept as central to their political/philosophical project. In fact, we can use your method of argument to demolish any category or concept. Take death for instance. How do we define death? By what criteria can we say anything is dead? Take life. By what criteria can we say something is alive? In fact we can't answer these questions perfectly and this is well known. But I don't see any use in getting rid of concepts like life and death which seem central to how we all understand the world. Along the same lines, I don't think we can dispense with "biological woman". And while all of this may seem "absurd" to you, terms like "AFAB" seems "absurd" to me.

danShumway 5y ago
> So the fact that we cannot seem to come up with a perfect criterion for defining "biological woman" does not mean that we can dispense with that category. Right. But nobody is asking you to dispense of the category of women, what we're doing is we're agreeing with you that the category is fuzzy and we're saying that genitalia and sex assignment at birth do not clearly designate identity. Nor are we getting rid of the category of cisgender and/or AFAB women. Trans women are not (and have never claimed to be) biologically identical to AFAB women. If trans women were claiming that they were biologically identical to women, then many of them wouldn't be taking estrogen. They are very aware about their biology :) But acknowledging the fuzziness of women as a category overall means regularly reassessing our social norms about how women are expected to act and what their bodies are expected to look like. This is especially true in instances where we see people who are sharing a lot of experiences with other women. Many trans women know what it's like to be catcalled. They know what it's like to be discriminated against at their jobs. Their experiences are not identical to everyone else's, in the same way that women's experiences in these areas are not all identical depending on their backgrounds/bodies/environments. But there is enough overlap that it is useful to group them together under the banner of womanhood. Because there isn't a perfect criterion for "woman", and part of feminism is critically examining biases about what hoops people need to jump through to be considered an "acceptable" woman -- regardless of whether those hoops are set up by men, or by other women. > To me, because it allows us to provide a fairly good answer to the question "where do babies come from?" Well, except for infertile women, who are fully woman and fully valid regardless of their ability to have children. > and to gender critical feminists because they view the concept as cental to their political/philosophical project. I disagree that trans women mean that these political/philosophical goals can't be achieved. To me, this is just gatekeeping, I don't see a real motivating need for this kind of exclusion. Trans women do not have an agenda to take away women's rights, many of these people are feminists themselves. > And while this may seem "absurd" to you, terms like "AFAB" seems "absurd" to me. The absurdity is not that you have different opinions about the definition of a woman, the absurdity is your implication that acknowledging the womanhood of trans women is tantamount to saying that their experiences are completely identical to cisgender, AFAB women, or that it's destroying some kind of sacred bond. That position is absurd because cisgender, AFAB women do not have identical experiences with each other. You wrote: > If it means "there is no distinction between biological women and trans women," that seems wrong to me and to the vast majority of people. That would be an absurd thing for anyone to claim about any attribute of womanhood, and nobody is doing so.

syspec 5y ago

Some AFAB women can't give birth. Some of them have more androgynous bodies. Some of them are black. How on earth did being black make it on that list?! Wtf

danShumway 5y ago
The way that black women experience sexism is often tangibly different than the way that white women experience sexism. Racial inequality can compound and complicate other inequalities. I think it's important in feminist circles to understand that the Black community can be affected by sexism in ways that white women might not experience. You can say the same about things like income. The sexism that a professional in an office job experiences can occasionally differ in subtle ways from the sexism that a blue-collar worker experiences. Not to say one is better or worse, just the way that inequality manifests is often contextually dependent.
empthought 5y ago
Because this entire ideology is deeply sexist and racist, and they consider black women to be less gender-conforming than white women.
- danShumway 5y ago
  > to be less gender-conforming No, but I do understand that the way society treats Black women is often different than the way society treats white women, and I understand that being a white woman does not automatically give someone complete insight into the struggles that Black women face.