Whose generosity? Whose freedom?
We asked two thinkers to address one of the most vexed questions of our time: “What is a woman?”
Here, Jacqueline Rose argues against the claim that sexual differentiation is “reality”.
Why not ask “what is a man”? Why is it only “what is a woman?” that is one of the most vexed questions?
Jacqueline Rose “argues”:
“What is a woman?” The formulation has the merit of suggesting that to be a woman, far from being obvious, is a question, and one susceptible to more than a single reply. This is encouraging at a time when the fight over the definition of what a woman is has taken on such virulence. Being a woman is at risk of becoming a protected category, as the binary man/woman hardens into place. This is happening even though it has always been a central goal of feminism to repudiate the very idea of womanhood, as a form of coercive control that means the end of freedom.
As the binary man/woman hardens into place? This is happening now, as we speak? It hadn’t already happened? We didn’t know there was a difference between women and men until recently? Then how could feminism even have existed? What did the word mean?
No feminism I know of ever had repudiation of the very idea of womanhood as a central goal. More the opposite. The central goal could be described as bringing women out of the shadows and hinterlands, out of seclusion and purdah, out of neglect and ignoring, to be as central and visible and part of things as men.
Ironically, this appeal to the category of woman as pre-given, unquestionable, is being made in the name of women’s safety, another core objective for feminism over the centuries…In the most prevalent version of this argument, trans women, who were once men, must be excluded from women-only spaces – which they threaten by dint of being, deep down, still a man – regardless of the lengths to which they have gone to leave that identity behind.
It doesn’t matter what “lengths” men go to; they can’t become women. Being a woman isn’t mere “identity.” People can’t become rabbits; men can’t become women.
They are frauds whom women should fear. But the case only holds if we are confident that we know what a man or a woman is in the first place.
Well, yes, but we are confident of that, with good reason.
Her punchline is meant to be inspiring:
“What is a woman?” Speak for yourself. Who on Earth can presume to answer the question on behalf of anyone else? In the end, it is a matter of generosity and freedom.
What is a man?
In that case, why am I referred to (by other people, all of them on Earth) as a cis-woman? Defined as someone whose gender identity matches the presumed sex at birth. What makes them think I match my ‘presumed sex’? What does that mean? The only way to answer that is to start listing characteristics of gender stereotypes.. Whoops. I meet some of those, yes, but not all. Not by a long shot do I meet all. Yes, I like to cook, but my favorite activity is science.
So I”m non-binary, right? Who gets to decide? Why not me? Well, because nature put this body together a certain way. I had no say in it, and it is what it is. I learned to live with it as best I could during puberty, and eventually came out the other side. I dress how I like, I live where I like (or will soon), I live with whom I like, etc etc etc. In short, like everyone else on earth, I am human, living in a body that is clearly female.
Okay, so they don’t want to use gender stereotypes? Then they have to come down to “feelings”. “I feel like a woman”. What the hell does that mean? If you were born male and raised male, how do you know what it feels like to be a woman? How can you be sure you aren’t miscategorizing your feelings into a category that doesn’t include you, feelings or not? The only way to know that what you are feeling is ‘like a woman’ is to be a woman…at that point, those are the feelings of a woman. And only one woman, at that. I don’t feel ‘like a woman’. I feel like me. And I don’t have some sort of mystical gendered soul.
The companion piece (I hesitate to call it an opposing view, because in many ways, the two pieces are like ships passing in the night) by Richard Dawkins is a nice reminder that, while he’s often a train wreck on social media, Dawkins is still quite good in long(-ish) edited form.
It’s a simple question that merely identifies as a vexed question by subsuming a layer of superficiality.
Generosity from who, benefiting who? Freedom for who, at whose expense? Would it be a terrible thing if woman, or man, became protected categories? Many examples of human rights legislation already define sex as protected categories.
Well, shit, sometimes I just need to read Ophelia’s excellent headlines first. Ignore me people.
Screechy Monkey #2
As you say, his social media persona is iffy, to say the least, and there’s a misogyny always bubbling under the surface, but he sure can write. There’s section in the song The Greatest Show on Earth by Nightwish where Dawkins reads his passage that starts “We are going to die and that makes us the lucky ones…”. Brings a lump to my throat every time I hear it. That paragraph is probably the closest thing an atheist can have to a credo: I’ve referred to it several times when religious types have asked how I can cope with the idea of death if there’s nothing after.
I just read Dawkins’s piece; it is indeed very good.
Dan Dennett had a word for this sort of thing: Deepity
I remember Dawkins vs Rose from almost forty years ago. It’s only in response to this post that I learnt that Jacqueline is not a relative of Steven/Hilary.
‘Ironically, this appeal to the category of woman as pre-given, unquestionable, is being made in the name of women’s safety, another core objective for feminism over the centuries’ – in what way is this statement supposed to be ‘ironic’?
Can somebody link to the Dawkins piece, please?
Never mind–I found it!
https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2023/07/biological-sex-binary-debate-richard-dawkins
Over at Why Evolution is True, Richard Dawkins has some backstory on his piece —
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/07/27/sex-2-dawkins-vs-rose-on-whether-theres-a-sex-binary/
WaM@11,
I tip my glass of “guid Scotch drink” to you.
I cannot speak for feminists, but my understanding is that feminists wanted women to be able to be women in the way that was best for them. Just as men had from the dawn of humanity.
Women were objecting to being defined by men, not by themselves, and being assigned roles at birth, not being given the time to develop and choose their own roles. And to change roles, too, if that is what they desired.
Women wanted to be able to enjoy the simple things in life, like making their own decisions, opening their own bank accounts, and controlling their fertility. They also wanted to be able to choose dogs over cats and trousers over skirts.
Too many men, on the other hand, all pine to be Mullahs.
Rev, trousers over skirts, yes, everyday. Dogs over cats? Bite your tongue!
I often think that the predilection of women for cats was proof enough we aren’t naturally nurturing. Dogs need care and nurturing; cats prefer to be left alone, except on those occasions it’s time to be fed or brushed.
Dogs allow men to indulge in their nurturing side; cats allow women to get away from their nurturing expectations.
Bzzzt! InvalidInputException: Contradiction detected. [Abort/Retry/Fail] _
Dammit. I need to implement better error handling in my bullshit parser.
“This is happening even though it has always been a central goal of feminism to repudiate the very idea of womanhood, as a form of coercive control that means the end of freedom.”
The language game being played here is astounding.
The “womanhood” feminists were fighting to end was the idea that there is something besides biology that is supposedly an intrinsic part of being female. Things like submission to men, subordinate roles, caregiving (often to their own detriment), sexual availability, modes of dress and speech, etc.
TRAs are attempting to split the definition as well–but the portion they’re sticking with is the very portion that feminists have been fighting all along. They simply want to ditch the biological elements.
@iknklast –
There are always exceptions, of course. I recently cat-sat for a friend who was going to be out of town for two weeks helping her mother relocate to a care home following a broken hip. I had agreed before my dog’s IMAH stopped responding to prednisone and her RBC count decreased rapidly and I needed to be able spoil her while we tried to find a way to strengthen her, but the cats turned out to be very needy. RoZie, my dog, was feeling irritable and especially towards cats who demanded my attention. I ended up taking RoZIe to my daughter’s so that she could have some peace and attention for herself.
Two weeks were extended because of issues with the firs care home, and it ended up being 3 1/2 weeks. Having the cats here, since they were not mine, did not help my mood. I was irritated that they were here. Normally, I like cats, but ended up putting these in the basement so I could have some peace of my own. I’m not blaming the cats, of course. It was just very bad timing for their extended stay.
RoZie did not recover, and the options were to move to steroids that have caused even worse side effects than prednisone, or to put her to sleep while she was still relatively pain-free. So, we had a vet come to the house for euthaniasia and she died with her head cradled in my arms.
The cats remained and their presence didn’t comfort me in my grieving. Their demands for attention grew even more needy in part because they no longer felt the need to hide due to the dog being snappy at them. It interfered with, rather ehan soothed my initial stages of grief.
It’s been a rough year for me.
I am very fond of both cats and dogs, iknklast. And I don’t find cats to be at all independently-inclined animals if they live with a human who showers them with love. They are as generous with attention and affection as dogs, unless they learn that their particular human doesn’t reciprocate, poor things.
Women’s movements have only ever asked for one thing – to be treated as being fully autonomous adults, as men have traditionally been. The men who demand that we indulge their fantasy of being women are doing what men have always done; they’re defining themselves as the default, and us as whatever they want us to be. That’s exactly the opposite of what women have asked for, and what we were getting close to achieving; and exactly what one would expect from a backlash movement to reinstate an earlier version of society which was firmly patriarchal.
Oh Mike. I’m so sorry. I know I’ve already said that but…
Thanks again. It comes pouring out at the oddest times, so I appreciate your indulgence on your blog.
I’m so sorry, Mike. What a terrible time you’ve had with one thing and another. You definitely did the right thing by RoZie, tough as it was on you. I hope that the good times you had with her, short as they were, will comfort you in your grief. I do hope that things improve from now on, although that won’t make up for what you’ve been through. Sending great big granny hugs.
I’m also sorry that you found the cats’ neediness upsetting; they were very likely grieving, too, having inexplicably (to them) suddenly lost everything they knew, home and people, and found themselves in a strange place with a bad-tempered dog (understandable from the dog’s point of view, but not theirs) and a sad human. Rotten timing all round.
Ach it’s not indulgence, it’s just [waves hands around vaguely].
RoZie got a rotten deal in the longevity department but she lucked out having you.
Having not that long ago lost a loved dog (see, I can love dogs too, but only individual dogs. Dogs I do not know are not on my love list, nor are dogs as a group), I can definitely empathize with your loss.
My cats have been very needy this week. I suspect it’s because the past month has seen me gone more than at home, and most of the time, my husband was gone with me. They need reassurance that we are still there for them. I imagine this will be the case until we get settled into our new home and they grudgingly accept that they are living there now.