Rachel Levine Nominated as One of USA TODAY’s ‘Women of The Year’

okay, since you apparently need it spelled out: i was talking to a guy who was defining womanhood based on fertility and therefore implying women with hysterectomies aren't women. i couldn't care less about the transgender angle, i was just pointing out that defining womanhood based on fertility is insane. if you want to draw more from that than what i said then that's your problem, not mine.

looking at the page listing all of their women of the year, there are a lot of them and it doesn't look like there was supposed to be a specific number of national honorees (i can't find a specific number figure anywhere else on the site either). i could be mistaken, i haven't dug really deep, but like 61 of the 62 (if i counted right) people on that list appear to be biological women so like it doesn't seem like as big of a deal as ppl here are making it out to be

 

i actually disagree that that's even a useful definition outside of specific medical contexts. some biological women do suffer from androgen insensitivity syndrome so they have xy chromosomes. i think it's far more productive to consider womanhood as primarily a social matter, that is, a woman is someone who was socialized based on the perception that they fall into the category of woman. i realize that sounds tautological, but it's far more representative of how the category is actualized in society since we haven't all taken our karyotypes.

why are you so obsessed with his/her penis size? very sus to be honest

 

Don't know why any men are on that list. Shouldn't he be on a list of men of the year so the men can be proud of him and us men?

 

Should we not have hospitals or medical centers for women since it is just a social matter and a matter of perception?

 

medicine is the context in which i said a definition based on reproductive biology or karyotype is more appropriate.

 

That is what I had issue with.

Of course a male has not given birth. They are not equipped to do so.

 

Edited to address the response to my post.

And what percentage of 'women' have the androgen insensitivity syndrome? .00005, being generous. So dragging that into the discussion is just chaff.

No, socialization has nothing to do with chromosomes. Either a person is XX (your AIS aside) or they are not.

 

it's very much relevant if you're trying to construct a definition for the term that actually includes all women

wow, you really could not have missed the point harder

 

There are always anomalies... but when you are talking 2-5 out of 100,000, you could play that game all day, and look foolish doing it. The MAJORITY of women are XX.

I didn't miss any point. You can make all sorts of constructs to dodge basic facts, but I don't play that game.

 

This is a perfect example of how rotten and absurd the US government and corporate media have become.

Again, truth is stranger than fiction. The collapse of US society is happening before our eyes in slow motion.

 

sure absolutely the vast vast majority of women are XX, but if only the majority are then you can't argue that is the defining feature of the group.

what "basic facts" do you think i'm dodging, exactly?

 

the idea that us society was ever better than this is a delusion

 

You make a very good point. I guess it depends upon one's degree of cynicism.

Still, having a man named as woman of the year by perverted corporate news sources seems taking absurdity to a new level. Right out of Orwell.

 

I believe I've already stated there will be anomalies. And that is what they are. They are not the standard by which the rest of the group is defined. Is tossing out a biological factor like that based on a .00005 anomaly?

Sorry, arguing based on your premise is disregarding biology.

 

More of the snide comments

Ok, now draw the parallel between that and your metaphor about a snake identifying as a worm.

 

true, which is why i'm not saying women have xy chromosomes.

biological categories are complicated and fluid and often need additional, not totally biological definitions in order to work precisely because of these sorts of anomalies. do you know how many species concepts there are?

womanhood has both a social superstratum and a biological substratum. arguing based on your premises disregards the social reality of women's existence under patriarchy.

 

i never said the snake identified as a worm, i said the implication of the user to whom i was responding's logic was that he would consider the snake a worm merely for its lack of legs. because he was essentially saying that group G (men, worms) lacking trait T (ability to bear children, legs) means any individual X (infertile woman, snake) lacking T makes it part of G even if X is actually a member of another group H (women, snakes) that can also lack T.

i literally do not know how i can make this more clear to you.

 

It was an awful metaphor as neither snakes nor worms have legs.

 

okay, pretend it's a pygopodid instead of a snake. does not change the substance of the argument at all.

 

Biology is not 'fluid' for a miniscule portion of anomalies. If you want to hold as such, then you have no basis for measure, and portrays itself as pure opinion.

If you want to discuss the societal position, which is separate from the biological position, have at it with someone else. My discussion has been, and will continue to be on the basis of biology. Facts as such are not subject to perception, which the societal position is.

Rachel Levine is not a biological woman. Calling them 'Woman of the Year' doesn't change that fact.

 

Which is one of the definitions of a female.

 

Why would the definition be so situational? A woman is a woman are they? Would a women's hospital be the place to go if Levine comes down with prostrate cancer? Do women get prostrate cancer?

 

LOL! That's what they told us, over and over again, 50 years ago when women were trying to get equal status in this patriarchal society. Progress has been made, but so slowly that the last couple of generations of women entering the workforce have no idea how hard we had to work just to smoothe that road for them. But until women are paid the same as men for doing the same work, then we still have a long way to go. Men are stubborn and no one likes to give up power.

On the day after Trump's inauguration, some of my friends back in L.A. went to join the women's march downtown. One of them, my age, carried a sign that stated "I can't believe I still have to march for this ****." That sums it up nicely.

 

Did you miss my post where I stated that in my opinion, transgender women should not be allowed to compete in sports? Try reading a bit more before jerking your knee, please.

Your analogy isn't even relative to this thread, since Rachel Levine is not being honored for anything requiring physical prowess. Women can compete just fine with men in the cerebral arena, thanks. And I'm not offended by her being rewarded over other women. I don't feel threatened in the least by transgender women. Having had to compete with men all of my life for equal treatment in this patriarchy, I'm not that insecure.

 

I refer you back to my comment about those who don't understand this issue. You have information at your fingertips that completely disproves your view, if you care enough to educate yourself.