With respect
From Woman’s Place UK a couple of years ago:
For the International Women’s Day episode of BBC Woman’s Hour, Emma Barnett interviewed Anneliese Dodds, the Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities, and asked her for a clear definition of ‘what a woman is’.
And didn’t get one. Of course.
Anneliese Dodds: Well, I have to say that there are different definitions legally around what a woman actually is. I mean, you look at the definition within the Equality Act, and I think it just says someone who is adult and female, I think, but then doesn’t see how you define either of those things. I mean, obviously, that’s then you’ve got the biological definition, legal definition…
Emma Barnett: With respect, I didn’t ask for that. What’s the Labour definition?
Anneliese Dodds: Oh, I think with respect, Emma, I think it does depend what the context is surely. I mean surely that is important here. You know, there are people who have decided that they have to make that transition. You know, I’ve spoken with many of them. It’s been a very difficult process for many of those people. And you know, understandably because they live as a woman, you know, they want to be defined as a woman. That’s what the gender recognition act…again a Labour…is brought into place.
And on it goes, waffle waffle waffle.
Adult, Human, Female. — I mean how do you define any of those things? It’s all so subjective and postmoderny and stuff. There must be some complex calculus in a book somewhere. Oof, the stupid.
Well, twiliter, the definition of adult is somewhat arbitrary, since there isn’t a clear moment where one becomes an adult, but in law there is. Maybe that’s what she meant? ;-)
She did say “context” though, so my reply would be “agenda much?” Which yeah, obviously.
@iknklast, #2
Oddly, it is somewhat the opposite for “female” – there is a non-arbitrary definition, as used in biology, but no legal definition.
I contend and believe that to be speciesist in the extreme. What about those who want to identify as a giraffe (say only on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays.?) No allowance is made for us… I mean, them..
And they’re all wrong, because they can’t. They’re all deluded.
Yes, and? Certainly they can be spoken to, or with, but they’re still mistaken, and you can’t change that, however sympathetic you may be.
I can imagine; doing the impossible usually is not only difficult, but, you know impossible.
But they aren’t women. Never have been, never can be, never will be. There are a nearly infinite number of things a person could claim to live as: cantaloupes, marmots, seltzer bottles. They would all be indicators of some kind of unhealthy obsession, or mental health issues, or both. But claim the word “woman” as your “identity” and suddenly it’s supposed to be normal and sane. But no, it isn’t. Why dismiss other, equally impossible identity claims, but accept the claims to “womanhood” without batting an eye? Instead of being counselled to seek out help, they’re told to help themselves to women’s spaces and facilities, and you’re going to lend a hand. Why is female existence open for colonization and appropriation by men? A man claiming he is a woman is as ridiculous as his claiming to be a cantaloupe, so why do you this seriously, to the extent that you’re giving women’s rights away? Why do you hate women so much? Think about this. And talk to Rosie Duffield. Please.