So in other words. A woman, is a giraffe. I don't follow.
Pre feminism and trans trend, we didn't need fluid language that means literally anything. A knife was a knife and a fork was a fork, both unique and easy to define. Having definitive meaning, helps me to cut my food, lest I ask for a knife, and get a fork instead.
There's a really great joke about how this young Communist in Here Is Your Life who becomes taken by Friedrich Nietzsche's theories about women, but you'll just have to watch it on the Criterion Channel to find it, as I don't think that it's online.
Bracha Ettinger argues for that femininity is a fluid concept, among other things, in The Matrixial Borderspace, but I am still waiting for a Feminist to apply her theories sans the Lacanian jargon because I assume that they are to the point, but can not fathom as to what they are.
There is no definition.
Women are women, just accept it.
The same as there are no definitions for a real man.
Trying to state that this, that, and the other are the components of a real or normal person would leave no one fulfilling the role.
Try this book, Normal Sucks by Jonathan Mooney. It actually uses the ideal of a normal woman as one of the examples he gives.
The present definition of women is contested for various reasons, including political reasons, so there are many competing definitions.
As most definitions of classes of entities, "women" class is a cluster of instances of humans, the simplest way to recognize an instance of a woman is if we take specimen's traits, weigh them and compare weighted traits to the weighted traits of a woman archetype. If they are close enough then the instance is consider to belong to women class. There are more nuanced ways to define classes of entities.
The weights of the traits, comparison method and the woman archetype are being contested presently.
The classical definition of a woman wasn't genetically based, even if it was overwhelmingly determined by the genetics. The classical definition was based on fertile men (fertilizers) and fertile women (child bearers). The perceptible traits of fertile men and fertile women that were the most sharply different between those groups were used as the classifiers differentiating between whole men and women groups (whole groups include fertile and infertile specimens).
Comments (6)
Furthermore, this: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/526321
So in other words. A woman, is a giraffe. I don't follow.
Pre feminism and trans trend, we didn't need fluid language that means literally anything. A knife was a knife and a fork was a fork, both unique and easy to define. Having definitive meaning, helps me to cut my food, lest I ask for a knife, and get a fork instead.
Bracha Ettinger argues for that femininity is a fluid concept, among other things, in The Matrixial Borderspace, but I am still waiting for a Feminist to apply her theories sans the Lacanian jargon because I assume that they are to the point, but can not fathom as to what they are.
Women are women, just accept it.
The same as there are no definitions for a real man.
Trying to state that this, that, and the other are the components of a real or normal person would leave no one fulfilling the role.
Try this book, Normal Sucks by Jonathan Mooney. It actually uses the ideal of a normal woman as one of the examples he gives.
As most definitions of classes of entities, "women" class is a cluster of instances of humans, the simplest way to recognize an instance of a woman is if we take specimen's traits, weigh them and compare weighted traits to the weighted traits of a woman archetype. If they are close enough then the instance is consider to belong to women class. There are more nuanced ways to define classes of entities.
The weights of the traits, comparison method and the woman archetype are being contested presently.
The classical definition of a woman wasn't genetically based, even if it was overwhelmingly determined by the genetics. The classical definition was based on fertile men (fertilizers) and fertile women (child bearers). The perceptible traits of fertile men and fertile women that were the most sharply different between those groups were used as the classifiers differentiating between whole men and women groups (whole groups include fertile and infertile specimens).