What is a Woman

[Consul]

Of course, it all depends what not looking down on someone or mistreating someone means. Would that mean accepting them in their gender of choice? That is where it gets complicated because a lot of people may think that they can just use whichever pronouns they like.

What do I have to do in order to "accept" transpersons "in their gender of choice"? Is addressing a transwoman as "Ms."/"Mrs." and using female pronouns ("she"/"her") to refer to this person enough? Must I also believe and (publicly) affirm that this person is a woman?

[Consul]

The focus on the biological sex and the dismissal of the validity of a person's gender identity is the issue.

What do you mean by "validity" here?

* "the quality of being well-founded on fact, or established on sound principles, and thoroughly applicable to the case or circumstances; soundness and strength (of argument, proof, authority, etc.)"
* "the quality of being valid in law; legal authority, force, or strength"
(Oxford Dictionary of English)

When a transwoman/transman has the legal status of a woman/man, then their subjective "gender identity" is legally valid. However, legal womanhood/manhood is a purely formal state of affairs, which doesn't entail that subjective "gender identities" are also valid in the sense of "being well-founded on fact, or established on sound principles."

The hard sciences are respected but the soft sciences are ignored or, in the case of some here, openly ridiculed. Further, all the prior research done which brought trans rights to today's situation has been ignored, as though transpeople only existed after Jordan Peterson took it upon himself to target the most vulnerable people in society in classic theist tradition.

Doing empirical social science is pretty hard too; but the critical postmodernists have "softened" large sectors of the social sciences and the humanities by ideologizing&politicizing them and thereby turning them into pseudoscientific mush.

[JackDaydream]

Of course, it all depends what not looking down on someone or mistreating someone means. Would that mean accepting them in their gender of choice? That is where it gets complicated because a lot of people may think that they can just use whichever pronouns they like.

What do I have to do in order to "accept" transpersons "in their gender of choice"? Is addressing a transwoman as "Ms."/"Mrs." and using female pronouns ("she"/"her") to refer to this person enough? Must I also believe and (publicly) affirm that this person is a woman?

Pronouns are extremely important. Most trans people are not asking for public acceptance. They just don't wish people to keep stating that they are not what they are, especially repeatedly. It is more the fixation on them that is the problem, rather just letting them be. It is when someone states an opinion over and over again it appears that they have a particular issue or problem. The reason why I think that you are transphobic isn't because you are saying that trans are not real but because you keep writing posts endlessly stating it. You must have written about three quarters of the posts on the thread and I am wondering just how long are you going to keep on doing it. It is the sheer number of posts deliberating that trans people are not their 'real' gender which makes them appear like a campaign or attack.

[Consul]

The reason why I think that you are transphobic isn't because you are saying that trans are not real but because you keep writing posts endlessly stating it.

I never said that "trans are not real"! I never denied the reality of transsexuality or transsexual persons!

You must have written about three quarters of the posts on the thread and I am wondering just how long are you going to keep on doing it. It is the sheer number of posts deliberating that trans people are not their 'real' gender which makes them appear like a campaign or attack.

Once and for all: I am by no means attacking transsexual persons as such, but the postmodern critical theory of gender/sex!
If you can't see the relevant difference, it's no longer my problem!

That said, I will criticize those (trans or nontrans) people who believe in that philosophy and (want to) apply it in social and legal praxis, particularly by institutionalizing the doctrine that all that matters to a person's sexual identity is their subjective gender identity (defined in psychological terms of subjective "feelings" or beliefs) rather than their objective gender identity (their natural sex defined in terms of objective physical, i.e. nonmental and nonsocial, characteristics).

[JackDaydream]

The reason why I think that you are transphobic isn't because you are saying that trans are not real but because you keep writing posts endlessly stating it.

I never said that "trans are not real"! I never denied the reality of transsexuality or transsexual persons!

You must have written about three quarters of the posts on the thread and I am wondering just how long are you going to keep on doing it. It is the sheer number of posts deliberating that trans people are not their 'real' gender which makes them appear like a campaign or attack.

Once and for all: I am by no means attacking transsexual persons as such, but the postmodern critical theory of gender/sex!
If you can't see the relevant difference, it's no longer my problem!

That said, I will criticize those (trans or nontrans) people who believe in that philosophy and (want to) apply it in social and legal praxis, particularly by institutionalizing the doctrine that all that matters to a person's sexual identity is their subjective gender identity (defined in psychological terms of subjective "feelings" or beliefs) rather than their objective gender identity (their natural sex defined in terms of objective physical, i.e. nonmental and nonsocial, characteristics).

I know that you are interested in critiquing postmodern theory. I just don't think that it should all be focused on gender, especially on transgender people. For this reason, I have created a thread for discussion with any who are interested on postmodernism. That is to shift the focus on to the philosophy approach of postmodernism. That is because even though ideas of gender have been influenced by feminism and postmodernism, this particular thread was not focused on this theory as the outpost came from a different angle entirely, referring to ideas of 'The Gospel of St Thomas', with no mention of postmodernism at all.

[Sculptor1]

Oh tut. So very outraged.

Yes, I am angry at people who willfully treat "any philosophical critiques…as equivalent to actual attacks on trans people rather than as critiques of views about trans people, or of trans activist commitments." (K. Stock)

But probably not as outraged as transpeople would be at your quoting of old ideas that should have been put away decades ago.

So we all should uncritically and devoutly acknowledge the new ideas of postmodern (trans)gender theory as the undeniable truth about (the nature of) gender/sex?

No one is asking you to do that.
What is being asked is that your personally twisted view point on gender is not better than a trans view point and that if your pronoun wishes are to be resected is it your duty to do the same to others.
It's not rocket science.
Maybe you should ask yourself why you have so much anxiety about the topic.

The focus on the biological sex and the dismissal of the validity of a person's gender identity is the issue. The hard sciences are respected but the soft sciences are ignored or, in the case of some here, openly ridiculed. Further, all the prior research done which brought trans rights to today's situation has been ignored, as though transpeople only existed after Jordan Peterson took it upon himself to target the most vulnerable people in society in classic theist tradition.

indeed

[Consul]

The focus on the biological sex and the dismissal of the validity of a person's gender identity is the issue. The hard sciences are respected but the soft sciences are ignored or, in the case of some here, openly ridiculed. Further, all the prior research done which brought trans rights to today's situation has been ignored, as though transpeople only existed after Jordan Peterson took it upon himself to target the most vulnerable people in society in classic theist tradition.

indeed

To reject the postmodern critical theory of gender/sex and its antibiological attitude is by no means to reduce all aspects of human sex(uality) to the biology or physiology of human sex(uality), but merely to maintain that a person's sex or "gender" is basically an objective corporeal state determined by nothing but biological or physiological characteristics. It is not to maintain that the psychology and the sociology of human sex(uality) are irrelevant to the science of human sex(uality) and should be ignored!

[Sculptor1]

The focus on the biological sex and the dismissal of the validity of a person's gender identity is the issue. The hard sciences are respected but the soft sciences are ignored or, in the case of some here, openly ridiculed. Further, all the prior research done which brought trans rights to today's situation has been ignored, as though transpeople only existed after Jordan Peterson took it upon himself to target the most vulnerable people in society in classic theist tradition.

indeed

To reject the postmodern critical theory of gender/sex and its antibiological attitude is by no means to reduce all aspects of human sex(uality) to the biology or physiology of human sex(uality), but merely to maintain that a person's sex or "gender" is basically an objective corporeal state determined by nothing but biological or physiological characteristics. It is not to maintain that the psychology and the sociology of human sex(uality) are irrelevant to the science of human sex(uality) and should be ignored!

Word salad.
There is no "postmodern critical theory of gender/sex and its antibiological attitude", except to say that it is a means by which assumptions can be examined. It does not assert, it critiques. It opens the possibility for the subject and cultural nuance.
Your statement is confused.
You might want to review it, since it is self contradictory.

[Count Lucanor]

This goes beyond theory and that is where a thread like this becomes tricky, and even if not intended as such, it does become an indirect attack on transgender people through focusing on them exclusively. It has become 30 pages in a week and a half and thereby stands out from any other recent threads and, in this way, puts trans lives under the microscope in a disproportionate manner, by focusing their psychology and bodies.

Isn't a philosophy forum the appropriate place to talk about theories? I'm pretty sure there is plenty of people, including transgender individuals, who go about their lives paying little to no attention to social theories dealing with sex and gender, and they might not want to hear about them, not even getting into activism. That's fine, but whoever gets into a discussion about the subject, including queer theorists, will discuss psychology and bodies.

In the core of postmodern gender theories there is a rebellious, transgressive approach towards the supposed imposition, as a historical social construction, of the "cisgender", heteronormative view and the gender binary. For them it is all about the heteronormative tribe against the queer tribe. Any discussion about the topic could be then considered an attack on cisgender people, through focusing on their ways of perceiving sex and gender, their psychology and bodies, right? Shouldn't a "cisman" or "ciswoman" be offended when they are told they have been living a lie because their bodies have very little to do with their sex or gender and they are male or female only because a doctor assigned them that classification at birth?

As far as I'm concerned, the topic "what is a woman" carries implicitly the subject of what is a man.

[JackDaydream]

This goes beyond theory and that is where a thread like this becomes tricky, and even if not intended as such, it does become an indirect attack on transgender people through focusing on them exclusively. It has become 30 pages in a week and a half and thereby stands out from any other recent threads and, in this way, puts trans lives under the microscope in a disproportionate manner, by focusing their psychology and bodies.

Isn't a philosophy forum the appropriate place to talk about theories? I'm pretty sure there is plenty of people, including transgender individuals, who go about their lives paying little to no attention to social theories dealing with sex and gender, and they might not want to hear about them, not even getting into activism. That's fine, but whoever gets into a discussion about the subject, including queer theorists, will discuss psychology and bodies.

In the core of postmodern gender theories there is a rebellious, transgressive approach towards the supposed imposition, as a historical social construction, of the "cisgender", heteronormative view and the gender binary. For them it is all about the heteronormative tribe against the queer tribe. Any discussion about the topic could be then considered an attack on cisgender people, through focusing on their ways of perceiving sex and gender, their psychology and bodies, right? Shouldn't a "cisman" or "ciswoman" be offended when they are told they have been living a lie because their bodies have very little to do with their sex or gender and they are male or female only because a doctor assigned them that classification at birth?

As far as I'm concerned, the topic "what is a woman" carries implicitly the subject of what is a man.

I am not suggesting that a philosophy forum shouldn't be a place for discussion of ideas, including the social construction of gender. My own comment was more of a reaction to an insistence upon the postmodern approach being flawed. There is, like all areas of philosophy, a diversity of opinions.

Also, what I was pointing to was the way in which in the present political climate, there has been a backlash against transgender people after a gradual acceptance. In the media, there is so much discussi of transwomen in sports and it is only a very small minority who compete in spirtsIt is a controversial area area generally. A 31 page thread has been created in 2 weeks. However, there is a lot of repetition and I am trying to get away from being repetitive myself. Ideas like postmodernism are influential, but it does seem that there is undue attention focused on trans people in the media as a whole.

[Count Lucanor]

I am not suggesting that a philosophy forum shouldn't be a place for discussion of ideas, including the social construction of gender. My own comment was more of a reaction to an insistence upon the postmodern approach being flawed. There is, like all areas of philosophy, a diversity of opinions.

All ideas should be welcomed, of course, including those ideas one is about to destroy. That's an approach that even the postmoderns embrace.

Also, what I was pointing to was the way in which in the present political climate, there has been a backlash against transgender people after a gradual acceptance. In the media, there is so much discussi of transwomen in sports and it is only a very small minority who compete in spirtsIt is a controversial area area generally. A 31 page thread has been created in 2 weeks. However, there is a lot of repetition and I am trying to get away from being repetitive myself. Ideas like postmodernism are influential, but it does seem that there is undue attention focused on trans people in the media as a whole.

I'm not sure about that being the case, it doesn't look like that to me, but I haven't read all posts, so I cannot tell. I think the subject has become a hot issue in the news because of obvious reasons: one is the effect of policies that are being enacted with regards to speech, basically prohibiting dissent from the tenets of poststructuralist gender and queer theories or forcing people to adopt its language (compelled speech). It is the only reason Jordan Peterson rose to fame. The second one is the sudden invasion of women spaces in society by individuals identifying as women under the assumptions of poststructuralist gender and queer theories (non-binarism, gender fluidity, gender performativity, etc.), in a moment in which the affirmation of women's rights in terms of equality of the sexes was still perceived to be short of its goals. Ironically, the backlash came from feminist theory itself (2nd wave, to be more precise). Beauvoir said that one is not born a women, but becomes one. For many, this notion is being pushed too far: apparently, there's no difference with transitioning to one, even if you used to be a member of the group that oppressed women.

[Consul]

There is no "postmodern critical theory of gender/sex and its antibiological attitude", except to say that it is a means by which assumptions can be examined. It does not assert, it critiques.

The adjective "critical" in "postmodern critical theory" doesn't simply mean "exercising or involving careful judgment or judicious evaluation" (Merriam-Webster) as in "critical thinking".

"Critical Theory has a narrow and a broad meaning in philosophy and in the history of the social sciences. “Critical Theory” in the narrow sense designates several generations of German philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition known as the Frankfurt School. According to these theorists, a “critical” theory may be distinguished from a “traditional” theory according to a specific practical purpose: a theory is critical to the extent that it seeks human “emancipation from slavery”, acts as a “liberating … influence”, and works “to create a world which satisfies the needs and powers of” human beings (Horkheimer 1972b [1992, 246]). Because such theories aim to explain and transform all the circumstances that enslave human beings, many “critical theories” in the broader sense have been developed. They have emerged in connection with the many social movements that identify varied dimensions of the domination of human beings in modern societies. In both the broad and the narrow senses, however, a critical theory provides the descriptive and normative bases for social inquiry aimed at decreasing domination and increasing freedom in all their forms."

Critical Theory: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/

No, postmodern gender theory doesn't only "critique"; it asserts as well, e.g. that sex is reducible to gender by being a "social construction":

"[T]here is no “objective” or natural sex…it is performatively constructed."

(Morgenroth, Thekla, and Michelle K. Ryan. "Gender Trouble in Social Psychology: How can Butler’s Work Inform Experimental Social Psychologists’ Conceptualization of Gender?" Frontiers in Psychology 9/1320 (2018): 239–247.)

"Sex is, then, a cultural thing posing as a natural one. Sex, which feminists have taught us to distinguish from gender, is itself already gender in disguise."

(Srinivasan, Amia. The Right to Sex. London: Bloomsbury, 2021. p. xii)

[Consul]

As far as I'm concerned, the topic "what is a woman" carries implicitly the subject of what is a man.

Yes, of course.

Do we now have definitions of "woman" and "man"?
I have ones:

Preface: In his paper What are biological sexes? Paul Griffiths writes that "sexes are life-history stages rather than applying to organisms over their entire lifespan." In my definitions I'm using the term "temporal part" instead of "life-history stage". If you don't know already what a temporal part is, see: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/temporal-parts/

"x is a boy/man" =def "x is a human individual who has a past, present, or future temporal part normally producing small motile gametes (spermia)"

"x is a girl/woman" =def "x is a human individual who has a past, present, or future temporal part normally producing large immotile gametes (ova)"

Note that the adverb "normally" is important, because it allows us to call human individuals boys/men or girls/women who, for some medical or pathological reason, do not have any temporal part which actually produces spermia or ova, but who would have had such a temporal part if there had been no abnormal circumstance preventing it from actually producing spermia or ova.
For example, a boy losing his testicles before puberty, or a man who lost his testicles before puberty doesn't have any temporal part capable of producing spermia; but he is still (properly called) a boy/man, because he would have naturally had such a temporal part if he hadn't abnormally lost his testicles before puberty.

Although there are (very rare) cases of intersex in homo sapiens, there are normal, natural correlations between a human individual's gametic sex, its chromosomes, and its phenotype. There are sex-specific or sex-typical chromosomes and phenotypes in homo sapiens (which are sex-specific or sex-typical in relation to the two gametic sexes). No temporal part of a human organism can produce spermia or ova without having specific organs capable of producing them, viz. testicles or ovaries, the development of which is initiated and determined genetically.

Given the above definition, the question as to whether transwomen are women/transmen are men is to be answered in the negative, because humans are incapable of gametic sex change—as opposed to those species whose members are naturally sequential hermaphrodites.

[Consul]

…No temporal part of a human organism can produce spermia or ova without having specific organs capable of producing them, viz. testicles or ovaries, the development of which is initiated and determined genetically.

Given the above definition, the question as to whether transwomen are women/transmen are men is to be answered in the negative, because humans are incapable of gametic sex change—as opposed to those species whose members are naturally sequential hermaphrodites.

Note that, given the above definitions, a transwoman who had her testicles surgically removed is still male, and that a transman who had his ovaries surgically removed is still female, because they have a (past) temporal part with spermia-producing testicles/with ova-producing ovaries!

[Sculptor1]

There is no "postmodern critical theory of gender/sex and its antibiological attitude", except to say that it is a means by which assumptions can be examined. It does not assert, it critiques.

The adjective "critical" in "postmodern critical theory" doesn't simply mean "exercising or involving careful judgment or judicious evaluation" (Merriam-Webster) as in "critical thinking".

"Critical Theory has a narrow and a broad meaning in philosophy and in the history of the social sciences. “Critical Theory” in the narrow sense designates several generations of German philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition known as the Frankfurt School. According to these theorists, a “critical” theory may be distinguished from a “traditional” theory according to a specific practical purpose: a theory is critical to the extent that it seeks human “emancipation from slavery”, acts as a “liberating … influence”, and works “to create a world which satisfies the needs and powers of” human beings (Horkheimer 1972b [1992, 246]). Because such theories aim to explain and transform all the circumstances that enslave human beings, many “critical theories” in the broader sense have been developed. They have emerged in connection with the many social movements that identify varied dimensions of the domination of human beings in modern societies. In both the broad and the narrow senses, however, a critical theory provides the descriptive and normative bases for social inquiry aimed at decreasing domination and increasing freedom in all their forms."

Critical Theory: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/

No, postmodern gender theory doesn't only "critique"; it asserts as well, e.g. that sex is reducible to gender by being a "social construction":

Well thank you for the nice goal post changing, but The Frankfurt School is not "PM CRT".
PM CRT does point out the failures of biological determinism and demonstrates how gender has ALWAYS been socially constructed. But you have not show that it asserts this on its own.
PM CRT is not in the business of stating the bleeding obvious like a penis is male, and no where does not deny that.

"[T]here is no “objective” or natural sex…it is performatively constructed."

(Morgenroth, Thekla, and Michelle K. Ryan. "Gender Trouble in Social Psychology: How can Butler’s Work Inform Experimental Social Psychologists’ Conceptualization of Gender?" Frontiers in Psychology 9/1320 (2018): 239–247.)

"Sex is, then, a cultural thing posing as a natural one. Sex, which feminists have taught us to distinguish from gender, is itself already gender in disguise."

(Srinivasan, Amia. The Right to Sex. London: Bloomsbury, 2021. p. xii)