1114
"What is a woman?"
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2024
1114 points (100.0% liked)
Political Memes
8596 readers
2953 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This is a recursive statement which gets us nowhere. We need to establish that there is some kind of basis, which is the previous definition.
Whether or not the statement is recursive, it is a basis. I see no valid reason to define it more rigorously. I identify as a woman, therefore I am. I identify as bisexual, therefore I am. Those are labels for nebulous social constructs, and don't need to be rigorous definitions. Any basis beyond "because I say so" would be inherently exclusionary. The entire debate over what defines a woman or a man is a pointless affair which harms transgender people and gender nonconforming cisgender people alike. I believe we should be abolishing gender, not trying to establish a basis for what makes someone woman or man enough. It's all made up.
My main point being: Gender is a social construct, and doesn't fit the complex reality of lived human experience. Let people define their gender in their own terms, for those that desire a label, and otherwise abolish it.
You've said a lot which I'm already on board with, and mostly besides the point.
People can define their genders however they want, but a person who identifies as a woman without doing anything else to project that identity is virtually nobody's conception of a woman is.
That's not true, what you're advocating for is gender gatekeeping and it's the same forced gender performance Republicans demand or else they'll examine your genitals before you use the bathroom.
At the end of the day, it isn't up to us to define or understand gender for anyone else. It's up to us to know and respect their pronouns. We don't get to define what being a woman is for everyone.
It's like the myth of sisyphus - what we bring to the journey is what defines that journey, and maybe defines us to some extent. Whether that's joy, singing, boredom, anger, all of the above, etc. What we bring to womanhood, whether thats traditional or not, is up to us and how we interpret it.
I don't think you mean it's a recursive statement, are you trying to say it's a circular definition? If we instead changed the statement to "A woman is any person who identifies as such," thus only using the word 'woman' once, does this fix your criticism of this definition? Does this mean you no longer need an arbitrary basis to define women?
It's an acceptable definition. A circular definition would be "A woman is a woman." Instead, she's defining a woman as someone who identifies as a woman. That's not circular. You just don't like it for whatever reason (you have yet to define what a woman is yourself despite thinking a different basis can be established).
Why do we need to establish a basis if it's all made up anyway? For what purpose?
Because we use words to identify things.
Okay, so then why do we have a word for woman? What is the intention of that category? Is it really necessary to define anyway? If not, why does it matter what a woman is except its what she calls herself?
We have a word for woman because it is a useful descriptor. The intention of the category is to presuppose useful information about a person. In some situations it is necessary to define. No need to answer the if not question.
Yes, and in your opinion, what specifically is that information?
Well if someone says to me "that woman is suspicious" and there are two people who present as men, and one who presents as a woman, then I'm going to keep my eye on the woman.
And how would you know which one was the woman?
This isn't a programming class, dude.
I mean, are you worried about definitions that are circular because A depends on B depends on C depends on A? No, you're not. No one has ever complained about this.
People are complaining about it, it's the whole point of this post. If saying "a woman is someone who identifies as a woman" was a sufficient, then we wouldn't be talking about this.
It is sufficient.
It's not recursive.
No one complains about wider circles: A -> B -> C -> A.
This is a made up problem.
I don't accept the assertion that your definition isn't recursive.
This is like someone who says they believe in God, because their definition of God is 'The Universe'
That's cool, define God however you want. But it's not a very helpful definition when the majority of people are using that word in a very different way.
Remember, language is descriptive, not prescriptive.
Let's try an experiment, hm.
"I am not a woman."
Using the definition "a woman is someone who identifies as a woman," would you call me a woman.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/98474/is-this-a-fallacy-a-woman-is-an-adult-who-identifies-as-female-in-gender
There's no real issue with recursive (self referential) arguments in philosophy or math. An example being the Fibonacci Sequence. I'm going to assume your criticism for this is that you, like many conservatives, think this definition is circular.
Oh, I was looking for something like this. The husband and wife example is really good.