Oh Lorelei, this is so beautiful, and beauty is not used enough in this gender battle. Every line is true and lovely. This one brought tears: "Somewhere in my heart there is a map of all the shortcuts I have not taken and of the lonely woods and pathways I did not wander, though they called out to me. " I too hope that even one woman who reads this will awaken from the spell. Thank you for sharing.
I can certainly sympathize with much of your post. Not least because, as Canadian suffragette Nellie McClung once put it, "no nation rises higher than its women":
Probably why so many Muslim countries are such basket cases.
However, I think this statement of yours is somewhat "problematic":
Lorelei: "Both the experience of having a female body that works as it should, and having a female body that doesn’t, are uniquely ours."
And where I think you, and far too many other "women" -- and many men too, go off the rails is in conflating the experiences AS a female with the definition for the category. And there's a profound though easily missed difference there.
Analogously, you might have said that "the [subjective] experiences of having a teenager body ... is unique to teenagers". But the DEFINITION for "teenager" is quite a bit different in specifying objective criteria for qualifying AS a teenager -- i.e., being 13 to 19. No doubt, we've all had quite different subjective EXPERIENCES AS teenagers, though there were no doubt many similarities. But we ALL met the objective criteria -- for 7 years -- of being 13 to 19. And then we longer qualified -- a "traumatic" experience that most of us more or less survived ...
But similarly with the sexes. Technically speaking and by the standard biological definitions for the sexes, the objective criteria that have to be met to have a sex, to be a member of the sex categories, is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. For example, see the definitions in the Glossary of this article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
"Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes" (Lehtonen & Parker [FRS]):
Try thinking that there's a profound difference between, on the one hand, the quite subjective experiences as a member a category, and, on the other hand, the objective criteria that have to be met to qualify as a member in the first place.
More broadly, there is some merit in you championing the definition of "woman" as "an adult human female". However, by those same biological definitions, the "female" and "male" sex categories are as transitory as is "teenager". Which makes both "man" and "woman" likewise. Feminists in particular might be wiser to champion a different definition -- maybe, "adult human XXer"? -- because "adult human female" seems something of a poisoned chalice that "women" might be wise not to drink too deeply from.
Your understanding seems to suggest that an infertile woman is not female which is obviously not the case. Can you explain what you believe a little bit more please?
Bit of a complicated and convoluted issue -- though hardly as complex as quantum mechanics, or even economics ... -- but one that is generally well within the grasp of we lesser mortals. Even if I'm still trying to get a handle on some of the finer points.
But the issue is basically one of defining categories -- which is what the sexes actually ARE:
OED: "sex 2) Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions."
And a further wrinkle is in deciding what are the "membership dues" for those categories, what are the "necessary and sufficient conditions" that an organism -- of any species -- has to meet to qualify as "referents of those terms (i.e., 'male' & 'female')". See this article on the types of definitions:
Wikipedia: "An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term."
Moot of course how we actually define various categories, which properties we might specify as those "necessary and sufficient conditions". There really are NO intrinsic meanings to any of the words we use -- it's up to us, to society how and why we chose those conditions and properties. For instance, "female" used to mean "she who suckles" -- by which Jenner and his ilk might qualify as such, even if the milk is probably unfit for human consumption:
But now, with the advancing of science and biology in particular -- gametes weren't discovered until the late 1800s, we have defined the sexes based on "producing gametes" as those "necessary and sufficient conditions". Probably why that OED definition talks about "reproductive FUNCTION", gametes of two types being essential precursors: no gametes, no reproduction.
You assert that it "is obviously not the case" that "an infertile woman is not female", but that really seems no more than an article of faith. It does not follow logically from the premises, from those biological definitions. Consider Arthur Conan Doyle:
"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
"Truth" is somewhat of a thorny issue, but IF one accepts those biological definitions -- of more than passing currency and relevance in all of biology -- THEN it necessarily follows that those who can't pay the membership dues -- i.e., functional gonads -- are neither male nor female. It is simply "impossible" to accept those biological definitions AND to then assert that every human has a sex -- some third of us are technically sexless, the prepubescent in particular. Conclusions follow logically from the premises -- the definitions -- we choose to accept.
We simply have to specify what we mean by various categories -- what we accept as the membership dues for them -- before we can meaningfully and rationally or legally create social policies based on category membership. Something underlined by a more less cogent analysis by Michael Foran (UK Constitutional Law Association) -- even if I think he goes off into the weeds -- linked to in a decent article by UK lawyer & Substacker Sarah Phillimore:
Foran: "Legal protection for one’s membership within a protected group cannot be provided if there are no settled criteria for determining whether one falls within or outwith that category."
The "problem" is that there are, apparently, "no settled criteria" in your definitions for "male" and "female". As you point out yourself, many "women" have very different "experiences" of being females so those experiences can not be used as those criteria. Why it is more or less essential to find the common element that is most relevant -- and those are the functional gonads of standard biological definitions.
Though that is not to say that those definitions are particularly useful for most social policies -- functional gonads aren't particularly relevant when it comes to adjudicating access to toilets, change rooms, and sports leagues.
But it seems clear that we have to start by defining our terms with some degree of intellectual honesty, and scientific accuracy. As philosopher Will Durant put it:
“ 'If you wish to converse with me,' said Voltaire, 'define your terms.' How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task. — Will Durant"
This is a splendid essay
Thank you ❤️
Oh Lorelei, this is so beautiful, and beauty is not used enough in this gender battle. Every line is true and lovely. This one brought tears: "Somewhere in my heart there is a map of all the shortcuts I have not taken and of the lonely woods and pathways I did not wander, though they called out to me. " I too hope that even one woman who reads this will awaken from the spell. Thank you for sharing.
❤️❤️❤️!
Beautifully written Lorelei and spot on. You have expressed the reality of being a woman so well.
Brilliantly written Lorelei. xx
💖💖💖
This is gorgeous and true. We live in a time of terrible disembodiment. You are helping us reconnect with our embodied experiences. Thank you.
❤️❤️❤️
I can certainly sympathize with much of your post. Not least because, as Canadian suffragette Nellie McClung once put it, "no nation rises higher than its women":
https://isabelmetcalfe.ca/enduring-spirit-of-the-famous-5/
Probably why so many Muslim countries are such basket cases.
However, I think this statement of yours is somewhat "problematic":
Lorelei: "Both the experience of having a female body that works as it should, and having a female body that doesn’t, are uniquely ours."
And where I think you, and far too many other "women" -- and many men too, go off the rails is in conflating the experiences AS a female with the definition for the category. And there's a profound though easily missed difference there.
Analogously, you might have said that "the [subjective] experiences of having a teenager body ... is unique to teenagers". But the DEFINITION for "teenager" is quite a bit different in specifying objective criteria for qualifying AS a teenager -- i.e., being 13 to 19. No doubt, we've all had quite different subjective EXPERIENCES AS teenagers, though there were no doubt many similarities. But we ALL met the objective criteria -- for 7 years -- of being 13 to 19. And then we longer qualified -- a "traumatic" experience that most of us more or less survived ...
But similarly with the sexes. Technically speaking and by the standard biological definitions for the sexes, the objective criteria that have to be met to have a sex, to be a member of the sex categories, is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. For example, see the definitions in the Glossary of this article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
"Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes" (Lehtonen & Parker [FRS]):
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
Try thinking that there's a profound difference between, on the one hand, the quite subjective experiences as a member a category, and, on the other hand, the objective criteria that have to be met to qualify as a member in the first place.
More broadly, there is some merit in you championing the definition of "woman" as "an adult human female". However, by those same biological definitions, the "female" and "male" sex categories are as transitory as is "teenager". Which makes both "man" and "woman" likewise. Feminists in particular might be wiser to champion a different definition -- maybe, "adult human XXer"? -- because "adult human female" seems something of a poisoned chalice that "women" might be wise not to drink too deeply from.
Your understanding seems to suggest that an infertile woman is not female which is obviously not the case. Can you explain what you believe a little bit more please?
"Explain"? In 25 words or less? 😉🙂
Bit of a complicated and convoluted issue -- though hardly as complex as quantum mechanics, or even economics ... -- but one that is generally well within the grasp of we lesser mortals. Even if I'm still trying to get a handle on some of the finer points.
But the issue is basically one of defining categories -- which is what the sexes actually ARE:
OED: "sex 2) Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions."
https://web.archive.org/web/20190326191905/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sex
And a further wrinkle is in deciding what are the "membership dues" for those categories, what are the "necessary and sufficient conditions" that an organism -- of any species -- has to meet to qualify as "referents of those terms (i.e., 'male' & 'female')". See this article on the types of definitions:
Wikipedia: "An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensional_and_intensional_definitions
Moot of course how we actually define various categories, which properties we might specify as those "necessary and sufficient conditions". There really are NO intrinsic meanings to any of the words we use -- it's up to us, to society how and why we chose those conditions and properties. For instance, "female" used to mean "she who suckles" -- by which Jenner and his ilk might qualify as such, even if the milk is probably unfit for human consumption:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/female#etymonline_v_5841
But now, with the advancing of science and biology in particular -- gametes weren't discovered until the late 1800s, we have defined the sexes based on "producing gametes" as those "necessary and sufficient conditions". Probably why that OED definition talks about "reproductive FUNCTION", gametes of two types being essential precursors: no gametes, no reproduction.
You assert that it "is obviously not the case" that "an infertile woman is not female", but that really seems no more than an article of faith. It does not follow logically from the premises, from those biological definitions. Consider Arthur Conan Doyle:
"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
"Truth" is somewhat of a thorny issue, but IF one accepts those biological definitions -- of more than passing currency and relevance in all of biology -- THEN it necessarily follows that those who can't pay the membership dues -- i.e., functional gonads -- are neither male nor female. It is simply "impossible" to accept those biological definitions AND to then assert that every human has a sex -- some third of us are technically sexless, the prepubescent in particular. Conclusions follow logically from the premises -- the definitions -- we choose to accept.
We simply have to specify what we mean by various categories -- what we accept as the membership dues for them -- before we can meaningfully and rationally or legally create social policies based on category membership. Something underlined by a more less cogent analysis by Michael Foran (UK Constitutional Law Association) -- even if I think he goes off into the weeds -- linked to in a decent article by UK lawyer & Substacker Sarah Phillimore:
Foran: "Legal protection for one’s membership within a protected group cannot be provided if there are no settled criteria for determining whether one falls within or outwith that category."
Links, including to my various comments thereon:
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2022/12/21/michael-foran-sex-gender-and-the-scotland-act/
https://sarahphillimore.substack.com/p/rip-it-up-and-start-again-sex-and/comment/16620256
The "problem" is that there are, apparently, "no settled criteria" in your definitions for "male" and "female". As you point out yourself, many "women" have very different "experiences" of being females so those experiences can not be used as those criteria. Why it is more or less essential to find the common element that is most relevant -- and those are the functional gonads of standard biological definitions.
Though that is not to say that those definitions are particularly useful for most social policies -- functional gonads aren't particularly relevant when it comes to adjudicating access to toilets, change rooms, and sports leagues.
But it seems clear that we have to start by defining our terms with some degree of intellectual honesty, and scientific accuracy. As philosopher Will Durant put it:
“ 'If you wish to converse with me,' said Voltaire, 'define your terms.' How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task. — Will Durant"
https://quotefancy.com/quote/3001527/Will-Durant-If-you-wish-to-converse-with-me-said-Voltaire-define-your-terms-How-many-a