Thursday, 24 April 2025

REPOST: "What's a woman?"

I'm not sure it's really the government's job to define a gender. But since that's where we're going, here's a relevant re-post from a couple of years ago ...

"What is a woman?"

Trans issues, for some people, have become a sort of "litmus test." Part of the so-called "culture wars." Asking the question "what's a woman?" -- asking it even of Prime Ministers, as a "gotcha" -- has become something of a popular test, a method to confront others in that so-called "war."

Which makes the whole issue tiresome.

And largely obscures the real issues.

What is the real issue? Answer: that everyone is entitled to pursue their own happiness in their own way -- as long as they don't force that on others. Everything else comes from that — including questions about sports and toilets.

In some ways, anti trans-activists are opposed to people pursuing their individual happiness.

In the same way, pro trans-activists are in favour of forcing some people's choices on others.

Both buggers are confused.

Yes, there are some legitimate issues involved here. Medicine can now transform people in some pretty fantastic ways, in ways that help some people see themselves better. It might take some time to get used to that. Some time for both sides and for our human institutions to get used to it, and to all the implications of it. (Sometimes sports and bathroom use might get more complicated because of that.) That doesn't mean shouting at each other about it; it might instead mean thinking about these things a bit more deeply.

Radical, I know.

I'd suggest both sides might think about it a bit more. A lot more. 'Cos both sides, as currently structured, are wrong.

Yes, there is a reliable definition of a woman: a woman is an adult female human being. So far so simple. Without that definition, we'd have no ability to define a girl (young woman), or a lesbian (a woman sexually attracted to women). But let's understand what a definition is: it's not a closed set with firm boundaries. It's a description of what exists in the world, identifying and describing the particular units subsumed under a particular concept, under a given label. But things change. If new things are identified, or created, we can create and recognise new and wider (or narrower) concepts, new labels, and new definitions. So much, so uncomplicated. (Or so you would think.)

Point being that definition comes after existence. Not before. So the definition (adult human female) doesn't thereby determine what that adult should do. Or become. In this context, individual adults themselves come first.

Let's recognise that each person, each adult, is an individual — an individual entitled to pursue their own happiness in their own way. [" ...full respect for the life project of others," as Javier Milei said in his inauguration speech.] Furthermore, let's acknowledge that modern life offers them more choices in that pursuit than ever before. That they might sometimes be mistaken, especially about something as deeply-seated as their sexuality, and they may even need guidance. And they might be wrong. But it is their right to choose — a right however that gives them no special right to force their choices on others.

Maybe we just try respecting each other. How about that, eh? 
How about we all try to act as adults.

4 comments:

MarkT said...

I don't agree the question is irrelevant. Arrangements around toilets and sports don't need to involve force - they can be decided by the particular organisations responsible. But for a sporting organisation say, it's entirely appropriate to consider if someone born with male testosterone and the physical advantages that confers is truly a 'woman' for the purposes of who they should compete against. There's also a metaphysical/epistemological issue - facts are facts, regardless of how you feel about them.

Peter Cresswell said...

@MarkT: I didn't say the question is irrelevant. I said I doubt that it's a government's job to define the question.
For sporting organisations etc. it is of course highly relevant. But as I suggest, that's up to those organisations to decide their position (as Swim England did, and the IOC did under Seb Coe , for example) but without the opprobrium given those folks for making a call.
(As I also suggest, since we're talking about adults, then let's all *be* adults. Without all the shouting, I suspect a few of these things would get organised with much less fuss.)

Peter Cresswell said...

PS: Yes, facts are facts. But as I suggest, don't let's confuse a *definition* (which comes post-fact) from the facts it is trying to define.

Anonymous said...

There was always words to describe men that present as women and men who undergo surgery to transform themselves. It is not woman. This new definition of gender is the left trying to destroy knowledge, again.