Here is the answer to that question:
Until recently, a woman was defined as someone who was born a biological female.
Now, as definitions change, a woman is defined as a person who identifies with the role of the previous definition of woman.
Language is descriptive, not prescriptive.
That’s not what the definition has changed to. Women can be women without identifying with that traditional role. A woman is someone who identifies as a woman. I am a woman, and I certainly don’t identify with the role of a traditional woman.
I’d quibble slightly and argue that there’s a strong case that gender is also performative so if society generally deems you a woman, you’re also a woman.
External perception should not be a qualifier of gender. Passing shouldn’t be required for a trans person to be a member of their gender, much as a feminine presenting man is still a man and a masculine presenting woman is still a woman, unless they say otherwise. Because it’s all made up anyways, we can allow the definition to be as flexible as gender itself is.
But yes, gender is often performative, but rather than defining that in the terms of the audience, define it in terms of the cast.
A woman is someone who identifies as a woman.
This is a recursive statement which gets us nowhere. We need to establish that there is some kind of basis, which is the previous definition.
Whether or not the statement is recursive, it is a basis. I see no valid reason to define it more rigorously. I identify as a woman, therefore I am. I identify as bisexual, therefore I am. Those are labels for nebulous social constructs, and don’t need to be rigorous definitions. Any basis beyond “because I say so” would be inherently exclusionary. The entire debate over what defines a woman or a man is a pointless affair which harms transgender people and gender nonconforming cisgender people alike. I believe we should be abolishing gender, not trying to establish a basis for what makes someone woman or man enough. It’s all made up.
I don’t think you mean it’s a recursive statement, are you trying to say it’s a circular definition? If we instead changed the statement to “A woman is any person who identifies as such,” thus only using the word ‘woman’ once, does this fix your criticism of this definition? Does this mean you no longer need an arbitrary basis to define women?
It’s an acceptable definition. A circular definition would be “A woman is a woman.” Instead, she’s defining a woman as someone who identifies as a woman. That’s not circular. You just don’t like it for whatever reason (you have yet to define what a woman is yourself despite thinking a different basis can be established).
Why do we need to establish a basis if it’s all made up anyway? For what purpose?
This isn’t a programming class, dude.
I mean, are you worried about definitions that are circular because A depends on B depends on C depends on A? No, you’re not. No one has ever complained about this.
“Biological female” has always been a construct, not a social construct but a scientific one.
Little known fact is that “gender” was adopted initially into parlance to try and rope off a certain arbitrary binary definition of sex before it was applied to social category. Biologically speaking “man” and “woman” was being shown to be way more vibes based than originally thought. An individuals chromosomes, hormonal balance, reproductive capability, outwardly visible genetalia and secondary sex characteristics were way more variable than a strict binary to the point where sex really was being looked at as more of spectrum. In a last ditch effort to preserve the idea of a sex binary the idea of a sort of model man and woman was derived as “gender” where everyone who didn’t fit neatly into those arbitrary boxes was looked at as essentially a deviation from the norm instead of basically just being normal in and of themselves. Basically 2 out of every hundred people are born with some sort of intersex trait and there are likely more since a lot of people learn they have some sort of intersex trait by accident. Like there are “biological” men out there who have uteruses or overies just floating amongst their other organs completely undiscovered until they get some kind of medical imaging done that realizes that it’s not just a benign tumour or a wonky bit of intestine.
When people say the the definition is a wobbly gray area they fully include the biological component. Even if you are talking about cis people there is no all encompassing biological archetype which doesn’t exclude some cis women.
identifies with the role of the previous definition of woman.
So what is the present definition of a woman?
A person who identifies with the role of someone who is historically a biological female
What about biological females in history who identified as, or at least presented as, male?
