What does it mean to be a "female?"

Under the increasingly passed laws claiming it is for equality for trans-people, there is no actual definition of what being trans means, other than how a person "self identified."

If being female has nothing to do with dna, nothing to do with genitals, nothing to do with hormones and nothing to do with a person's physical body, what does being female actually mean? If a man says "really I'm a female" what does he mean by that?

Be specific. What does being "female" mean in this context? Does it mean he wants to be seen socially as and treated as female? If so, then it is only about social norms - as in entirely. Yet there is no required social norm for females. So, what does "I self identify as female" really mean is REAL terms if it doesn't mean genitalia, doesn't mean dna, doesn't mean physical body and doesn't mean outward appearances?

I don't ask this as anti-trans. Rather, in real, practical terms, what does it mean?

 

Trans people are trans GENDERED. In this context gender and sex are not synonyms.

I believe your confusion is sparked by your hard headedness.

 

Hold up a moment - what do you mean by "claiming it is for equality of trans-people"? Sounds like you're trying to insinuate that this is a cover for some other motive.

"No required social norm for females".

First, let's try to agree on what a social norm is. One definition is that of "an expected form of behavior in a given situation". It's interesting though that you use the word "required". Explain to us what you mean to convey in saying "there is no required social norm for females".

Social norms aren't about requirements, but expectations. Clearly, people do have expectations concerning how they think women usually act/appear. And clearly, there are many situations where people defy those expectations, though not necessarily without social consequences (shunning, abuse, etc.)

As for what it means when a trans-identified person says they identify as female, it's necessary to understand that identity is one thing, transitioning another. It should also be noted that we're usually talking about this in the context of someone who is under a doctor's care for treatment related to their gender dysphoria (the condition of feeling one's emotional and psychological identity as male or female to be opposite to one's biological sex.)

"I self identify as female" means that the person identifies themselves as female in gender. It's important that we distinguish here between sex and gender, which are often used interchangeably in other contexts. When speaking of the sociological context of sex versus gender, "sex" refers to a person's assigned sex (which may or may not reflect their full biological/physiological reality), while "gender" has a couple of different contexts, that of "gender identity" (the gender that a person perceives themselves to be), and "gender expression" (the ways in which a person expresses their gender identity; such expression of gender usually is influenced by social norms (or defies them.)

This is very much about how a person perceives themselves in relationship to societal norms attached to gender identity and expression. So proclaiming that there is "no required social norm for females" is actually your way of seeking an escape route from the conversation you've pretended that you wish to have. Not to mention that the idea is completely divorced from the reality of people's expectations as they relate to gender identity and expression.

What being "female" has to do with depends on the context in which we're discussing that term. Obviously, it has an application in a biological and physiological context, but we should not make the mistake of thinking these form some "rule" that divides humans into "male" and "female" in a sociological context. In a biological/physiological context, it's an observation that most people's genetic sex and physiology correspond to an observable, binary norm. But not all. Sex differentiation is a complex process. There is the usual, expected results, and there are other results that don't conform to expectations. Those that don't conform are gathered under the term 'intersex', but that's really a term we should understand as a sociological one as well, since there are several separate causes and outcomes related to intersex conditions.

It's worth noting that there is some overlap between people who are intersex, and those who identify as transgender. So it's not entirely correct to say that biology/physiology are wholly unrelated to the issue of transgender rights. For some people, they are - because they're assigned sex is based on an observation of their external organs at birth that may not take into account their complete sex-related physiology or genetic makeup.

As for "in real terms", there appears to be the intention behind that phrase to cast doubt on whether gender identity is real, if it can't be defined by the requirements you wish to impose. Your personal opinion has no actual weight in the matter, though. What matters is that doctors qualified to assess these issues have largely agreed that transgender people deserve care that treats their gender dysphoria. Whether or not you agree with the course of treatment they work out with their patients (one that doesn't always recommend surgery) is of no consequence.

As for "I don't ask this as anti-trans", pull the other one. Your historical commentary is known to us, and informs our understanding of the actual thrust of this thread.

 

Wow never thought about this, a guy can claim to be a woman so that can be protected as a protected class.....(*)(*)(*)(*)ing genius!!

 

Which is a complete fiction concerning what being transgender is actually about.

 

Who cares what you think it is about, what it will do is basically destroy the protected class of women or make it meaningless.

 

Long winded response for...

Female is about being treated female in a sociological context.

 

Why does it have to mean anything?

 

A female is one that have female parts.

 

So why do males have female parts ???

Can you guarantee that people are not born with hardwired female brain
characteristics ?

 

Why should anyone care any more about what you think than what Perriquine does? At least they were making a clear statement of defined fact, you were just making an unsupported accusation.

Do this mean you’re in favour of the concept of “protected classes” and think there should be different rules for different “types” of people? Because that would require a massive shift from the current legal and social reality of there being protected characteristics where the underlying principle is have different types of people treated equally.

The comment that triggered this was suggesting that a man pretending to be a woman to become a protected class when in reality men are protected by the same legislation and regulations as women – they all prohibit discrimination on grounds of gender, not discrimination against females. The imbalance is because women have traditionally been (and to an extent still are) discriminated against much more than men. A man pretending to be a women actually opens themselves up to a lot more discrimination in practical terms but no greater protection from it in legal ones (even without considering the additional discrimination for being (perceived to be) transgender).

 

***That is pure horses**t***. Other than that, who cares what you think it is about.

 

`
`
Biologically, women are born with the plumbing to 'give childbirth.' That cannot be surgically or chemically reproduced.

 

***Really? I think transgender folk realize their 'actual sex'**. It's not just about 'the organs' one is born with. It's much deeper than that. Even men poses mitochondrial DNA. Think about it. Further, it's medical fact that men naturally poses female hormones. Duh. Some men, I imagine, more than others.

 

Why should anyone care what you think about it? Whether something has meaning is completely dependent on individuals giving it meaning. What argument do you have to support your idea that transgender people will "basically destroy the protected class of women"?

 

So you would agree that person who has had gender confirmation surgery to give them 'female parts' qualifies as female, then?

What about people whose parts at birth are a mix of male and female, or something in-between?

What about people who have had some of their 'female parts' removed? Are they still female?

In other words, your view represents a gross oversimplification of what goes into making a person female in a biological/physiological context, and completely ignores the social context of gender expression & identity.

 

Question.

If a female is defined in a sociological context, where does the social behavior of a female come from?

 

So a genetic female born without a uterus isn't a women, in your view?

And yet people can be aided by treatment that makes them more comfortable with their bodies, in confirmation of their gender identity. Something that others seek to negate with statements that amount to proclaiming their idealized concept of a (non-existent) perfect biological binary as the only thing that matters.

Bottom line: Life is messy, and that includes issues surrounding both biological sex and gender identity. The world doesn't fit into these perfect little boxes that people try to build - and in some cases it can be argued they do so for the very purpose of ignoring the existence of those who don't fit into them.

How convenient that some people can just ignore the reality of things that don't fit into their perfect, tiny, idealized, imaginary worlds.

 

That's actually an easy one: Society.

One can try to argue that social behavior is driven by biology, but it ain't necessarily so.

The sociological context is one that is perpetuated by a society of people 'teaching' its 'newcomers' the 'rules' of that society. That teaching can be direct statements made to children by family members to ensure their conformance, or it can come in the form of other social behaviors from those outside the family group (like shunning behavior seen in the school environment).

 

`
Where did you come up with this ridiculous question? Allowing for anomalies due to any number of reasons, women (generally but not always) have the built in capability to give birth. Men do not. So, what does it mean to be a female? In a very large part, the ability to give birth.

Ya happy?

 

Since a man can claim to be a woman, then women as a class no longer has meaning.

 

Ok so really by society you mean the culture that the female lives under? So gender identification is purely a cultural fact? For example...

Medival European Protestants were correct to claim a person born male shall always factually remain male due to the culture at the time?

 

It's not a ridiculous question. You made a categorical statement concerning the definition of what a woman is. I am glad though that you can seen how its application in the absolute is problematic. Yet you still insist on returning to the very same idea, that being a female means the ability to give birth. And that's simply not true, since even women who develop the ability to give birth as they mature may lose it at some later point in life, including as part of the natural aging process. Some women, even though they have the requisite parts, may not develop the ability to give birth when they mature; they many not even be able to conceive despite their 'parts'.

It's called wanting to have your cake, and eat it, too. Either your definition applies, or it doesn't. If it doesn't apply to all cases of people we would consider to be female, then it's not a definition of what a female is - especially not in the social context, which your preference for defining women purely as a matter of biology ignores.

- - - Updated - - -

Making a claim is not the same thing as supporting that claim.

 

This was the question I addressed:

What you're attempting to extrapolate from my answer (or at least what I think you are) is incorrect, in my view. I would not say that gender identity is the product of a particular culture. I would say that some cultures are more accepting/understanding of it than others. A person who identifies as female would most likely try to conform to the social behaviors that relate to expressing female identity within their particular culture/society. I would say that gender identification exists regardless of whether or not a particular culture is accepting of it.

There is a caution to be made here: Non-acceptance/denial/rejection as part of a cultural norm doesn't mean the thing unaccepted/denied/rejected doesn't exist within that society. That existence may simply have been driven 'underground' by the rejection, and hence the development of subcultures. Sometimes people have to hide to escape the negative attentions of the society in which they live. This hiding + persecution + cultural denial of their valid existence can create the appearance of their complete absence within a culture.

 

`
The best I can say is thanks for your opinion. I don't agree with it but out of curiosity, what's your point?