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.
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 what specifically about her presents as a woman to you?
It’s funny you’re such a coward about actually saying this, since you’re the one claiming this basis exists. If it’s there and you can know it immediately on sight, then what about the woman you’re imagining in this scenario makes her a woman to you?
“Vittually everyone else is using a definition,” so what is it? You refuse to say directly. And how do you know everyone else uses that definition? Multiple people itt have defined it as I and Erin have- any woman who identifies as such.
No, it’s that they fit the gender binary you’ve been trained to spot your whole life. However, we’ve found that the gender binary is inaccurate and wrong so it’s stupid to force people to follow it arbitrarily.
I am reading what you’re writing, I just disagree and you think I should agree. No thanks.
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?
The one which presents as a woman. Because me, and virtually everyone else is using a definition which has utility (not yours).
Ah, I see the definition. “A woman is someone who presents as a woman.” You’re right, that’s much better and much less recursive.
Actually, my full statement would be "a woman is someone who presents with the role of the previous definition of woman (biological female).
Which is my original definition.
How does a “biological female” present?
Do they wear dresses?
Ah yes, biological dresses.
And what specifically about her presents as a woman to you?
It’s funny you’re such a coward about actually saying this, since you’re the one claiming this basis exists. If it’s there and you can know it immediately on sight, then what about the woman you’re imagining in this scenario makes her a woman to you?
“Vittually everyone else is using a definition,” so what is it? You refuse to say directly. And how do you know everyone else uses that definition? Multiple people itt have defined it as I and Erin have- any woman who identifies as such.
The problem is actually just that you’re not listening to me.
Let me show you.
This is Two Guys and a Girl
One of these three people presents as a girl, right?
There is not one specific defining feature of her gender as she presents herself, it’s the outcome of many variables.
No, it’s that they fit the gender binary you’ve been trained to spot your whole life. However, we’ve found that the gender binary is inaccurate and wrong so it’s stupid to force people to follow it arbitrarily.
I am reading what you’re writing, I just disagree and you think I should agree. No thanks.