![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Sexuality , what is a “woman”, etc.
Jul. 4th, 2022 12:34 pmA lot of controversy stirred up by a Times op-ed about the word “woman”. Many LGBTQ+ people apparently find it “disgustingly trans-phobic”, but I’ve read it twice and don’t see that. Of course, right-wingers and politicians who cater to them routinely exaggerate the phenomenon of “left-wing politically-correct language police”, but I still think there’s some substance here to be addressed.
At Ketanji Brown Jackson's SCOTUS confirmation hearing, Senator Marsha Blackburn famously asked her to "define 'woman'". As others have pointed out, there is no one right definition of “woman”. There are lots of different definitions, overlapping but not entirely coinciding, and which one you use depends on why you’re asking.
If I need to define “woman” to study genetic inheritance, it makes sense to define “woman” and “man” in terms of XX or XY chromosomes (although there are fuzzy cases like mosaicism and XXY trisomy).
If I’m looking for a sex partner, it makes sense to define “woman” and “man” based on current possession of vagina or penis (although there are fuzzy cases like hermaphrodites and ambiguous genitalia).
If I’m trying to produce children, the relevant characteristic is the ability to get pregnant, which leaves out pre-pubescent and post-menopausal people, people who (congenitally or due to surgery) have no uterus, etc.
If I’m studying how early upbringing and socialization affect people, a “woman” is somebody who was raised as a girl.
At various times in the past, there were other reasons to ask -- and therefore to define -- whether someone was a "woman": to decide what clothes she could wear, what education and professions she could pursue, whom she could have sex with, whether she could vote, whether she could own property or sign contracts, etc. Fortunately, we no longer need define gender for those purposes because our society has decided that gender doesn’t matter for these things (although you never know what the next SCOTUS term will bring).
If I’m interacting socially and professionally with other adults, or if I’m studying how adults treat one another socially and professionally, a “woman” is someone who currently identifies as a woman in social and professional settings. (In my ideal world, I wouldn’t need to define “woman” for professional and social-but-not-sexual purposes, because gender shouldn’t matter there.)
It seems to me that many social conservatives are offended that all these definitions don’t all coincide exactly. They would rather have only one definition, so they legislate that all these definitions must coincide, and the fuzzy cases simply don’t exist.
The op-ed asserts (if I may re-cast it in these terms) that a substantial faction on the left likewise want there to be only one definition: “currently identifies” is the only legitimate definition of “woman”, and using that word for any of the others is oppression.
I’m sure we haven’t actually gone as far in that direction as the op-ed claims, but if we do, we’ll need to come up with other words for “person with vagina”, “person with XX chromosomes”, “person capable of getting pregnant”, “person raised as a girl”, and so on. Do we really want to do that? Or does it make more sense to allow some ambiguity, to use the word "woman" differently depending on context? Can we reasonably use "woman" to mean "person capable of getting pregnant" in an article about abortion or childbirth, while using the same word to mean "person who self-identifies as female" in an article about professional mentors and role models?
Of course, as others have pointed out, arguing over who qualifies as a “woman” is something of a distraction when all kinds of women are under attack from the far right.
At Ketanji Brown Jackson's SCOTUS confirmation hearing, Senator Marsha Blackburn famously asked her to "define 'woman'". As others have pointed out, there is no one right definition of “woman”. There are lots of different definitions, overlapping but not entirely coinciding, and which one you use depends on why you’re asking.
If I need to define “woman” to study genetic inheritance, it makes sense to define “woman” and “man” in terms of XX or XY chromosomes (although there are fuzzy cases like mosaicism and XXY trisomy).
If I’m looking for a sex partner, it makes sense to define “woman” and “man” based on current possession of vagina or penis (although there are fuzzy cases like hermaphrodites and ambiguous genitalia).
If I’m trying to produce children, the relevant characteristic is the ability to get pregnant, which leaves out pre-pubescent and post-menopausal people, people who (congenitally or due to surgery) have no uterus, etc.
If I’m studying how early upbringing and socialization affect people, a “woman” is somebody who was raised as a girl.
At various times in the past, there were other reasons to ask -- and therefore to define -- whether someone was a "woman": to decide what clothes she could wear, what education and professions she could pursue, whom she could have sex with, whether she could vote, whether she could own property or sign contracts, etc. Fortunately, we no longer need define gender for those purposes because our society has decided that gender doesn’t matter for these things (although you never know what the next SCOTUS term will bring).
If I’m interacting socially and professionally with other adults, or if I’m studying how adults treat one another socially and professionally, a “woman” is someone who currently identifies as a woman in social and professional settings. (In my ideal world, I wouldn’t need to define “woman” for professional and social-but-not-sexual purposes, because gender shouldn’t matter there.)
It seems to me that many social conservatives are offended that all these definitions don’t all coincide exactly. They would rather have only one definition, so they legislate that all these definitions must coincide, and the fuzzy cases simply don’t exist.
The op-ed asserts (if I may re-cast it in these terms) that a substantial faction on the left likewise want there to be only one definition: “currently identifies” is the only legitimate definition of “woman”, and using that word for any of the others is oppression.
I’m sure we haven’t actually gone as far in that direction as the op-ed claims, but if we do, we’ll need to come up with other words for “person with vagina”, “person with XX chromosomes”, “person capable of getting pregnant”, “person raised as a girl”, and so on. Do we really want to do that? Or does it make more sense to allow some ambiguity, to use the word "woman" differently depending on context? Can we reasonably use "woman" to mean "person capable of getting pregnant" in an article about abortion or childbirth, while using the same word to mean "person who self-identifies as female" in an article about professional mentors and role models?
Of course, as others have pointed out, arguing over who qualifies as a “woman” is something of a distraction when all kinds of women are under attack from the far right.
