What is a woman?

I mean, if you’re old enough to read and write, you’re old enough that you know the answer already.

If you identify as a woman, I will treat you as a woman.

@Entropy @KNOWITALL So what is a woman?

@KNOWITALL already answered your question.

@hat. Not really. @KNOWITALL Said if someone identified as a woman they treat them them like a woman. I’m asking what a woman is.

A woman is someone who identifies a woman.

Is that more clear?

@hat Not really. I’m not trying to be a jerk here but you can’t use a word in its own definition. I understand someone can identify as a woman, but that doesn’t answer the question “What is a woman”.

“Woman” is a term of gender, which is fluid and a social construct. @KNOWITALL and I answered your question.Self-identifying as a woman is the very definition of “woman”. There’s no other way around it.

If you have other ideas that you’re attempting to work out around gender, go for it.

@hat I don’t understand what you mean by the last bit. Regardless, that is a circular definition, which only works assuming everyone already knows what the word woman means.

Essentially, a rib.

There are at least two answers, one is strictly scientific, based on chromosomes and the other depends on how a person self-identifies, based on interests, feelings and goals. This is true for both “man” and “woman” and any other aspect of social identity.

@YARNLADY: “one is strictly scientific, based on chromosomes”

That’s sex, not gender.

@hat I don’t see where the question limits the answer to “gender”.

^ “woman” is a term of gender. You were starting to talk about sex (female) while defining a gender (woman).

So, the conversation isn’t limited to gender. But defining “woman” certainly is.

“What is a woman” is an ontological question. It is often a lazy, bad faith “gotcha” by people who attack trans people because their existence challenges their beliefs about sex and gender. The definition is simple: “adult female person.” This includes trans women because the word “female” can refer to either gender or sex depending on the context. Anyone who genuinely identifies as a woman is one.

Biology is not being denied here. What’s being challenged is “women are defined by their bodies,” which is not a biological statement. It is a system of material oppression that keeps women in an immovable system of a sex hierarchy. The consensus of science includes and affirms that trans people exist in the way they say they do. Attacking the claim that trans women are women is not scientific, but rather a justification for oppression and/or bigotry. The reason is that the existence/acceptance of trans women challenges a deeply held belief in sex essentialism.

(Adapted from: https://twitter.com/WhatIsAWomanBot/, an automated resource for responding to both good faith questions and the tediously repetitive bad faith challenges of transphobes.)

It’s also interesting that the question is always about the definition of woman and the fight is over trans women in female spaces. It’s never about men because trans men don’t pose a threat to the people and structures seen as being most in need of protection. Therefore, they’re mostly ignored.

[Mod Says] Please remember to assume good faith and to disagree without being disagreeable. Thanks!

@malcomkade A question for you, then, “What is a man?” Your question as worded, you must admit, is very politically, socially, and emotionally charged these days. (You obviously have access to the internet, you can’t really deny knowing that) so why not ask the other obvious question?

@canidmajor. Basically that is the same question. There seem to be so many different ideas as to what a woman is now, I was curious to see the differences in the responses. I would be equally curious about the response to the question “What is a man?”.

So the textbook definition is ‘an adult female human being’. Its a pretty sensitive topic for a newbie to start with here, and without a reasonable justification for asking, because, you know, there’s Google for definitions.

@malcomkade Why aren’t you answering the question @canidmajor posed to you?

@Hawaii_Jake To me a man is an adult male who takes responsibility for his actions and does his best to provide love and support to his friends and family. I know plenty of “guys” that aren’t real men in my opinion.

@KNOWITALL and @hat answered the question.

@malcomkade Why would your definition of “woman” differ?

@malcomkade: “There seem to be so many different ideas as to what a woman is now”

I don’t think there are. There is the old-school conservative view of sex and gender that are socially constructed and maintained through rigid thought patterns and control. There’s also the reality, which most people (including science and medical instutions) understand.

Try reading how scientists use language to describe things such as sex and gender (here is a link of one of the first hits I get.)

“In the study of human subjects, the term sex should be used as a classification, generally as male or female, according to the reproductive organs and functions that derive from the chromosomal complement [generally XX for female and XY for male].”

“In the study of human subjects, the term gender should be used to refer to a person’s self-representation as male or female, or how that person is responded to by social institutions on the basis of the individual’s gender presentation.”

The jury isn’t out on how we should currently discuss and think of gender. There is resistance for sure, but there always is. Hence the “social institutions” part.

To define “woman” as someone who identifies as a woman is not only suffient – it’s the most accurate definition available.

I have no idea what your definition of “man” is, considering it uses “male” and has all kinds of other notions that are strange.

@canidmajor Other than the adult male part, to me the definition is the same for a woman

Interesting question and answers (that weren’t moderated). If I understand correctly, the OP is asking for a definition of “woman”. Many of the answers are saying “if you identify as a woman you are one. But that doesn’t define what a woman IS. How can you identify as something without being able to describe what it is?

I’m old school. A woman is the name we have given to the female, adult, human. Adult because if they are younger they are either children (girls) or teenagers (youths). Female because that is the term for that portion of the population of humans that were designed by birth to be able to bring forth babies. There are sometimes physical problems that preclude that end point, but they were designed along those lines. Most of what decides that is the chromosomes.

This article might help some of you.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/sex-gender-and-sexuality-its-complicated/

Women are adult female humans.

Adults are members of a species who are fully grown.

In species that reproduce sexually, females are the sex that produce large, immobile gametes. (Males are the ones that produce small, mobile gametes.)

Humans are a bipedal primate of the species Homo sapien.

Some people separate sex and gender. That’s a form of recent language manipulation made by some to separate biology and identity. They have long had the same meaning until some made this deliberate distinction. Gender identity is not the same so I don’t get why we don’t specify it like that.

A woman is an adult female human, two XX chromosomes.

Some people have a strong identity with being a woman even though they may be biologically male. Nothing wrong with that. I personally don’t like language manipulation, it’s problematic and has become a political tool, sometimes a weapon. It makes for bad discourse and horrible misunderstanding.

@Blackwater_Park So how should trans women refer to themselves then? How should they be referred to by others?

Adult Homo sapiens individuals that posses female parts at birth and have XX sex hormones.

A person with female traits. You refer to them as she/her.

What are “female traits.”?

Whatever a woman wants them to be.

@Demosthenes Whatever they want to be called. I never said that there was anything wrong with gender identity. I just think intentionally redefining words for political reasons is a slippery slope to newspeak. That and it can increase political division. When words have different meanings to different people they’re not going to be able to talk about that issue from the same frame of reference.

@Blackwater_Park: “I just think intentionally redefining words”

First, language is fluid. It’s constantly changing. However, in this case, what you’re describing as a redefinition is merely a clarification. As we learn more, we realize that the arbitrary terms we use to describe social constructs need clarification. Pushback from conservatives is an attempt to pretend that a) language is not fluid, and b) we don’t need to know anything else. It’s scientifically and intellectually lazy and an an expression of unnecessary rigidity of thought.

@Blackwater_Park: “for political reasons”

The “political” part is the pushback from conservatives who don’t want to change their understanding of what gender is. It’s also a way that conservatives can use language to control and people.

@Blackwater_Park: “slippery slope to newspeak”

Yep. We’ve all heard that before. Remember the pushback against gay marriage? It’s 2022, so we’re all supposed to be marrying our toaster ovens by now.

@Blackwater_Park: “When words have different meanings to different people they’re not going to be able to talk about that issue from the same frame of reference.”

This is exactly why we need people to understand that words have meaning. Working out what people mean when they say “woman” or “man” or “gender” is the project you’re opposing. You want to maintain one definition for old conservatives, and another definition for everyone else.

Language is difficult, and there are plenty of disagreements people have because we do have different definitions for things. Most Fluther conversations are sidetracked because someone uses a term in a way that is different than others’ understanding.

@hat We’ll I’m going to completely disagree with everything you just said.

It’s no clarification, it’s a redefine.

It’s political because activists have done this. Does not matter if you agree with them or not or if their intentions are good or not.

Words have wide-spread, well understood colloquial meaning. If a certain group of people want to change that meaning be it a clarification or whatever then they’ll have to contend with the fact that the rest of the world may not accept their new definition, understand it or in many cases even have heard of it. That’s a very poor way to try to make changes in this world. At worst this is used to intentionally muddy the water.

This little language trick can be applied anywhere for any reason. It’s frankly dangerous.

This has nothing to do with how I feel about the subject being discussed.

@Blackwater_Park: “We’ll I’m going to completely disagree with everything you just said.”

Fair enough. We’ll leave it at that.

Out of curiosity, however – I’m assuming you know people who were born male but are now girls. How do you refer to them? Let’s say you have a group of four 12-year-old girls and you happen to know that one of them was born with male genitalia. Do you think of them and speak of them as four girls, or do you use other language to describe them?

I don’t have any problem calling them whatever pronoun they want. I would call them all girls in that case. In general, I think it’s the respectful thing to do. I’m just not going to buy into the sex/gender as a spectrum is science thing. It’s not. Preference and identity, sure. That gets pretty complicated and calling that a fluid spectrum makes sense. I also think that tolerance and acceptance of this sort of thing should be a priority.

@Blackwater_Park: “I don’t have any problem calling them whatever pronoun they want. I would call them all girls in that case. In general, I think it’s the respectful thing to do.”

@Blackwater_Park: “I also think that tolerance and acceptance of this sort of thing should be a priority.”

Sounds like we mostly agree then. And we are likely using language the same way. :)

@Blackwater_Park: “I’m just not going to buy into the sex/gender as a spectrum is science thing. It’s not.”

What in particular do you think they get wrong? Are you still convinced that there is utility in conflating sex and gender? It seems that you already acknowledge that they are different things. I’m confused.

I think he’s differentiating between the term “gender” (identical with “sex”) and “gender identity”. I would argue that “gender” is often simply shorthand for “gender identity” (which could be said to be redundant).

My one hang-up with this is the way that some trans activists seem to want to gloss over the different experiences of trans women/men and bio women/men. They say “trans women are women” and sure, I can accept that, but I can’t pretend that they have identical life experiences. Bio women have uteruses and periods, trans women do not. That alone will mean a significant difference in life experience. I think this is what some of the JK Rowling controversy is over.

@Demosthenes: “I think he’s differentiating between the term “gender” (identical with “sex”) and “gender identity”.”

I guess I’m wondering why, since everyone uses gender to = gender identity, why turn gender into a synonym of sex?

Anyway, yes – there certainly are different experiences. Expanding the conversation to include all human experiences is a good thing. Although, I doubt that much of the JK Rowling controversy is about this.

My hangup is not with what activists want to accomplish, it’s they way it is being approached. Some of it borders on science denial. I am fully aware of chromosomal outliers and disorders such as kleinfelters, double Y etc. These are abnormal exceptions but even then, most people in this category will be able to impregnate, be impregnated or in some cases be sterile. For the most part you can still distinguish male/female. The bottom line is that there is generally only male and female in normal human biology. This idea of sex as a spectrum is not factually correct unless you want to play with words.

Most people still see sex and gender as meaning the same thing. This separation is recent, like it gained momentum in the last 20 years or so. People outside the political fray will not understand the two have been separated. If you say gender identity then there is no misunderstanding, or need to redefine terms. I’m able to distinguish the two because it kind of makes sense to do so and I’m familiar with all the literature about it. I certainly would not ask that of others though. I also don’t believe gender is completely a social construct. I think it’s partially a social construct combined with biological, environmental and psychological origins. A.K.A. “it’s very complicated.” Saying it’s 100% socially constructed is not very genuine. I view the trend to parrot that sort of thing as kind of cult-ish. Like in the same vein as young earth creationists.

Again, on the redefining terms, it’s a dangerous road we really don’t want to go down.

@Blackwater_Park But it’s not simply a “redefining”. If you examine the history of the word “gender”, it was essentially not used outside of a grammatical context until the mid-20th century, referring to masculine, feminine, and neuter noun classes. Of course these noun classes were so named because of their associations with the sexes and nouns referring to men and women, but it wasn’t really until the 1940s that “gender” started being used to refer to people. And in its first uses, it was in the context of masculine and feminine traits and roles, not a synonym for “sex”. The replacement of the word “sex” with “gender” (referring to genitalia and biology as opposed to the social aspect) occurred mainly in the 80s and 90s. “Sex” stopped appearing on forms in favor of “gender” (perhaps simply due to “sex” also referring to intercourse and a new word being desired). It’s essentially been a cycle then, a return to the earlier usage.

And not all changes of this type are due to the machinations of scheming activists. People say the same thing about the word “gay”, but that was an organic change that occurred within the homosexual community in the 1960s and then spread outside the community once gay men became more visible and integrated into mainstream society. There was no “plot” to take over a word meaning “happy, cheerful”.

Except that in this case, it was a deliberate change by academia and organizations. The recent distinction between the two was not organic. Does not matter if the intent was good here, it clouds the conversation and certainly will appear like scheming to a good number of people. Again, this is not a good way to make change.

All of this navel-gazing is boring and useless. Just treat people with respect and don’t worry about what’s up their skirt or what sex chromosomes they have. All of this desperate need for definition just belies a seedy underbelly.

Also, Billy Joel answered this question decades ago.

@Blackwater_Park I suppose, but I’m not even convinced it was much of a change. I think certain aspects of the scientific/academic community never stopped using “gender” in this way (and I would argue, so did some of the general public). There has just been increased focus as trans issues come to light. I don’t think it’s wrong to use “gender” to mean “sex”, by the way. I’m not into enforcing strictures on language.

I agree that it can create confusion and problems. A less controversial example would be the word “berry”. The original meaning was simply “a small fruit”. Botanists co-opted the term to refer to a specific biologically-defined type of fruit that excludes many colloquial “berries” and includes fruits never referred to as berries, like bananas. So now you have pedants who say “um, technically a strawberry is not a berry” and it’s like, okay, sure, to a botanist maybe, but the colloquial meaning lives on and the word “strawberry” was coined long before botanists redefined the term (the same thing happened with “nut”). I digress, but I don’t find examination of language boring, I find it fascinating.

I miss @Simone_de_Beauvoir.

Oh yeah. Me too @Rebbel.

If “female traits” are anything she wants them to be, then they are just “traits,” @ImmaKnew. Not specifically female traits .

I know now where this question comes from. Apparently Matt Walsh, an alt-right troll produced a “documentary” where he gotchas people with the question “What is a woman?”. He’s an offensive asshole who used tricks and underhanded methods to get people to participate.

The encouraging thing is that young people already understand all of this, and will roll their eyes when us older people even attempt to understand it. It’s something so simple that it needn’t take a long discussion or be political. They simply live an experience where there are many different genders, and everything is fine. They’re able to use language, which is a tool, in order to accurately navigate life. They didn’t receive a memo from a government or medical organization notifying them how to talk and act. All of this nonsense by older generations is simply chalked up to “boomer” mentality and the inability of older people to process new information.

I call bullshit @hat.

^ You call bullshit on what?

For once I’m in agreement with @Dutchess_III, I think. You believe kids picked it up organically? They’re getting it from media and our institutions of learning. And, I’ll assure you kids here in the conservative deep south are not all getting that memo. They’re getting their bullshit and indoctrination from conservative christian groups so you’ll see many young people oppose this sort of thing. This, and older people are generally more able to process new info and filter it from political bullshit so you’re probably going to find a more moderate but tolerant and realistic group of people as they get older peaking around middle age. Younger people will be more militant in their political beliefs, whatever those beliefs are. Youth and naivete go hand in hand.

My kids go to school with people of all genders – and have for most of their education. Just try having a discussion with young people and see how ridiculous you come off. “Militant”? Or just fucking tired of olds insinuating that their friends are not what they think they are, and using their ignorance to define the future. The amount of distrust of youth here is pretty strong. Young people are better than us in almost every way.

On ”...inability of older people to process new information..” Bullshit.

@Dutchess_III: “On ”...inability of older people to process new information..” Bullshit.”

I’m just saying that this is how we’re perceived. It makes sense that we would be perceived this way because the data shows that we’re slow to adapt.

@hat is absolutely correct. My daughter who is at UCLA understands exactly what this is about and it’s a non-issue between her and her friends.

@Dutchess_III It’s not bullshit. I’m as “woke” on this issue as anybody my age. I have a good friend who is genderfluid. They look and act female (wear dresses, have nice hair, etc) but they identify as genderfluid. I’ve known them for years and I still slip and call them “she” or “her” from time to time. They understand and just appreciate the effort. People their age have no problem with it. People my age have trouble adjusting.

@Blackwater_Park Same in the bible belt, although it’s becoming less of an issue here than 20 years ago.

I’m not sure ANYONE understands this. Look at this page. A simple question was asked…what is a woman? MOST of the answers started off as a variation of “whatever someone wants it to be. In other words there is NO definition. So if there is no definition, how can there be understanding? It is very much a fluid parameter when you cannot actually define words you are using.

@seawulf575 Communication is always an iffy proposition We must assume that people can get the gist of what we are saying since we have no way of truly knowing what they think a word means. Try defining a hot day, or a blue sky. My son says it’s very hot here (25 C) yet, at home weather reporters call 80 F comfortable.

@YARNLADY Communication is potentially an issue. But there is a problem with that proposal. In your examples, you used “hot” as the operative word. That is very subjective…some people tolerate heat better than others. But the word “woman” shouldn’t have that subjectivity to it. And to define a word as “whatever you want it to be” is a complete farce. That means that no word has any specific meaning…only what I want it to mean. Yet we say that someone wants to emulate a woman but that a woman is whatever they want it to be.

Oh my. What happened here?

Six days and 91 responses later, and only one person [ @Caravanfan ] has actually caught on that the OP is really just boosting publicity for the latest right wing culture war bomb – the so-called documentary “What Is A Woman?”

I know Matt Walsh is probably laughing his smug ass off at all the earnest liberals straining for “correct” answers here. And @SavoirFaire wants everyone to play nice and assume good faith, but this whole question reeks.

We’re being gamed folks. But I’ll play along, out of sympathy. And my answer is:

Just like a man, a woman can be defined in terms of genetically determined sex, biophysical gender, or socially accepted role behaivior. It’s not just one thing, for men or women.
Sexually females are characterized as humans born with two X chromsomes in their genetic code. Females also develop distinct physical features and abilitites, driven by hormones and other body chemistry that result in aspects of gender. Besides that women think, feel, and act in ways that are conditioned partly by our biology and partly by the cultural norms of the societies & communities we live in. For 99% of us, a female can be sexually recognized by genetic and biochemical markers that separate them from males. The whole process results in an individual that we call a Woman.Those are the facts as clearly and honestly as I can put them.

But let’s be real people. This post isn’t aiming for facts or truth. Like the film, the point is politics – and honesty isn’t in the script.

@JLoon I find it very educational being on these pages. I learn what the latest right wing culture bombs are. I inevitably hear about most of them from people on the left. How is that when I’m supposed to be one of the right wingers on these pages?

@seawulf575: “How is that when I’m supposed to be one of the right wingers on these pages?”

Because you are not the target demographic. You’re already infected. The right-wing propaganda is targeting those who are not yet fully indoctrinated.

@hat The point I was making is that I don’t watch Fox news, I don’t know about all these supposed culture bombs…none of it. Yet you all seem to. Even though I am a conservative (and proud of it), most of these things address some topic or another. I do research to find both sides of debates so I can make up my own mind. I question everything, right wing culture bombs as well. But I’ve never heard of many of the things y’all put out here as being talking points for the right.

Maybe you are partly right…having my own views it is entirely possible that many other people share them. But let me ask…you said I am not the target demographic. So who IS the target demographic? The left wingers? That is who I hear about most of these things from. That doesn’t make much sense since the information being presented runs contrary to what lefties believe. I suspect most on the left wouldn’t watch them. Apparently they do.

But they all claim these culture bombs are talking points from the right. @JLoon stated that this question is not serious, that it is just a regurgitation of some film or documentary. So if conservatives are not the target audience, how do they know about these things to regurgitate them here? Often I hear about how these culture bombs are designed to “stir up the base” of the right. But the right isn’t the target audience you say. So how is something they are not going to watch going to stir them up?

@seawulf575: “The left wingers? That is who I hear about most of these things from. That doesn’t make much sense since the information being presented runs contrary to what lefties believe. I suspect most on the left wouldn’t watch them. Apparently they do.”

The left doesn’t watch “news”. But we are aware of what kind of dangerous right-wing or conservative propaganda campaigns are out there. Even liberals know about these propaganda campaigns.

You’re not the target because you swallowed the pill so long ago, your brain is broken. Every horrible conservative/right-wing/fascist astroturfed campaign or ideology seems to do so organically within you because you have internalized the logic and therefore no longer need elaborate campaigns designed to break people. The work has already been done.

But there are people who are vulnerable, understand that they’re being fucked, but are ignorant of who is doing the fucking. So before they figure it out, they’re manipulated into thinking they’re the victims of the gays/trans/communist/PC/language police/unions/etc so they stay obedient and turn on fellow victims.

“women think, feel, and act in ways that are conditioned partly by our biology and partly by the cultural norms of the societies & communities we live in”

Lol what now? Is this the 1950s?

@jellyjellyjelly – That’s what I said.

Tell me what part of it you don’t understand, and I’ll tell you what century I think you’re living in.

But regardless, one thing never changes: Whenever a woman tries to describe her own experience in life, you can always count on a man to tell her why she’s wrong. Which is mostly what’s really behind the whole “What Is A Woman?” question/farce.

Just boys being boys…

I don’t understand what thoughts, feelings, and actions are defining characteristics of being a woman. Can’t a woman think, feel, or do anything she chooses? And can’t a man do those things too?

My own reaction to to the response above is -

“What a nice idea! Sort of like the ‘everyone is everything’ stuff my parents talk about when they try to explain the 70’s to me”.

But then I wonder, “If my brain is just as good a man’s how come I’m working my ass off, but only making 83 cents for every dollar they pay a guy doing the same job?” And, “Will the fact that even if keep going till I hit 69, I’ll still end up with a retirement income over 33% smaller than the average male make me feel that I’m worth less as a human being?”

Of course a man might think and wonder the same damn thing. But most of them never will. Because they don’t have to.

Are you saying that you make 83 cents for every dollar because your brain isn’t as good as a man’s!?!?!? What??????

@jellyjellyjelly – I assume you’re just playing dumb, and that you’re not addressing your answers to me because you don’t think I’m worth the bother. So in that case, knock it off.

I have a name, and you know what I meant. I’m not your entertaniment for the evening. Go back and read what I said and stop wasting my time.

But in case you really are that dense, here :
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUnOOrOnZWI

Take a deep dive.

I genuinely do not understand why you would say that women make 83 cents for every dollar because their brains aren’t as good as men’s brains. That is so extraordinarily sexist and regressive. I am shocked to hear that in 2022.

Also I have no idea what your name is.

@JLoon yes, you are so enlightened. You are one of only two who caught on.~

Look at you taking the bite. I believe you have now written the most words on this thread

Eye roll