But just to be sure that i understand you correctly: you say its complicated, but you have no way to tell what a woman is, beyond (honest) self description?
Short version: There’s no way to define “woman” using so-called “objective facts” such that you include all cisgender women while excluding all transgender women.
This is actually a general problem with strict definitions. See also the sandwich question. Definitions are in reality built more on consensus than rigor.
That’s probably because I wasn’t writing a rebuttal per se, but a clarification. The distinction is important because, although he’s incorrect to say that we have no means of identifying if somebody is a women besides them honestly self identifying, we also don’t know if we have found all the different means by which a person may legitimately be considered a women. We can positively ID a person as a certain gender, but we can’t negatively ID them as not a certain gender.
So I guess the direct answer to the question about if we can identify a woman outside of a person self identifying is “sometimes”. Certainly, allowing people to self identify is easier than forcing them to take a bunch of tests and MRI scans only to get results ranging from a “yes” to “maybe”
We can positively ID a person as a certain gender, but we can’t negatively ID them as not a certain gender.
This is the part I’m confused by. Positively identifying someone as one gender identity negatively identifies them as other gender identities. If you can identify someone as, for example, a woman, you also by definition have a way to negatively identify them as a man. So I don’t think we have a definite way to positively or negatively identify someone.
The “positive” or “negative” identification is in relation to what the person claims. So if a person claims to be a woman, we can use science to determine either “yes this person is definitely a woman” or “maybe this person is a woman.” What we can’t do is say “no this person definitely isn’t a woman” because it’s possible there is some factor we haven’t identified or discovered yet which would validate their identity.
Edit to add: actually, I can think of ONE test to prove that somebody who says they’re a woman but isn’t: gender transition to the gender they claim to identify as. Cisgender people usually get severe gender dysphoria if they attempt gender transition. I would consider that proof positive that they aren’t the gender they claim to be. However, subjecting somebody to such an experiment without fully informing them if the risks and/or against their will is massively unethical which, imo, disqualifies it for the purposes of this conversation. But technically it’s an option.
The whole man/woman categorization is a social construct trying to simplify something incredibly complex. Sometimes the simplification works better (with typical cisgender people) and sometimes it really doesn’t describe the underlying complexities well (with transgender/intersex/etc).
But just to be sure that i understand you correctly: you say its complicated, but you have no way to tell what a woman is, beyond (honest) self description?
Short version: There’s no way to define “woman” using so-called “objective facts” such that you include all cisgender women while excluding all transgender women.
This is actually a general problem with strict definitions. See also the sandwich question. Definitions are in reality built more on consensus than rigor.
No, I’m saying that the lack of any particular medical criteria can’t be used to invalidate anybody who genuinely identifies as transgender.
I don’t think this response effectively rebuts his comment
That’s probably because I wasn’t writing a rebuttal per se, but a clarification. The distinction is important because, although he’s incorrect to say that we have no means of identifying if somebody is a women besides them honestly self identifying, we also don’t know if we have found all the different means by which a person may legitimately be considered a women. We can positively ID a person as a certain gender, but we can’t negatively ID them as not a certain gender.
So I guess the direct answer to the question about if we can identify a woman outside of a person self identifying is “sometimes”. Certainly, allowing people to self identify is easier than forcing them to take a bunch of tests and MRI scans only to get results ranging from a “yes” to “maybe”
This is the part I’m confused by. Positively identifying someone as one gender identity negatively identifies them as other gender identities. If you can identify someone as, for example, a woman, you also by definition have a way to negatively identify them as a man. So I don’t think we have a definite way to positively or negatively identify someone.
Ah, I think I see where the confusion is.
The “positive” or “negative” identification is in relation to what the person claims. So if a person claims to be a woman, we can use science to determine either “yes this person is definitely a woman” or “maybe this person is a woman.” What we can’t do is say “no this person definitely isn’t a woman” because it’s possible there is some factor we haven’t identified or discovered yet which would validate their identity.
Edit to add: actually, I can think of ONE test to prove that somebody who says they’re a woman but isn’t: gender transition to the gender they claim to identify as. Cisgender people usually get severe gender dysphoria if they attempt gender transition. I would consider that proof positive that they aren’t the gender they claim to be. However, subjecting somebody to such an experiment without fully informing them if the risks and/or against their will is massively unethical which, imo, disqualifies it for the purposes of this conversation. But technically it’s an option.
I’m still not sure I agree with your logic, but ethically your point really isn’t one I want to argue against, so I support this anyways
The whole man/woman categorization is a social construct trying to simplify something incredibly complex. Sometimes the simplification works better (with typical cisgender people) and sometimes it really doesn’t describe the underlying complexities well (with transgender/intersex/etc).