The latest gotcha to invalidate transgender people is to say we can’t define the word woman. With a Shapiro-like smirk, they ask for a definition, expecting us to bumble, stumble and finally admit defeat. Is this really the death blow to trans rights, though? No.
Gender is complex. It intersects with all of our humanity, and therefore it’s sort of tough to encapsulate in one single definition. See, that’s the issue. The challenge being presented by the reactionaries is the task of reducing something multi-faceted into a singular simple idea. This is why so many people struggle to define it at all. However, just because gender isn’t simple, it doesn’t mean it’s incomprehensible, and it doesn’t mean we need to be overly reductive in our definition. By zooming out on the subject of gender, we can get a much more accurate view of what it fully is.
Here’s my attempt at a more expansive, zoomed out, definition of gender.
Gender, and the word woman, can be defined based on at least 3 possible domains of experience, because gender intersects with all of them, the subjective, the inter-subjective and the objective.
Subjective — This is our inner experience of gender. It’s how we feel about ourselves, our gender identity. From this perspective, a woman is someone who identifies as a woman, a man is someone who identifies as a man and a non-binary person is someone who identifies as non-binary. Isn’t this definition self-referential, though? Since we’re talking about the subjective domain, that doesn’t matter. It’s like trying to define being gay. We don’t count how many men a man has slept with. If he says he’s gay, he’s gay, at least from the subjective perspective.
Inter-subjective — This is the social domain. It’s about gender performance and gender expression. From this perspective, a man is someone who presents, and is perceived by others, as a man. The same logic applies to women and non binary people. It’s why it’s possible for a trans person to be gendered correctly in public.
Objective — This is the domain that overlaps with what we refer to as sex. It’s our interpretation of biological markers and how we classify them. Hormones, chromosomes, genitals, gametes, gonads and secondary sex characteristics are what go into this definition. Having all the characteristics of one category isn’t necessary, though. Women without large gametes aren’t automatically defined as men, for example. Further, one marker isn’t more important than another in this definition. XY women exist, even though some people try to reduce our sex and gender to chromosomes. So, in this domain, woman can be defined based on having enough biological markers to fit the category of woman.
Trans people are who they say they are based on all three definitions. With the subjective definition, simple self identification is all that matters. With the inter-subjective definition, presenting as our desired gender and asking for certain pronouns is what matters. Based on the objective definition, medical transition is what matters.
When someone favors one domain and excludes the others, they’re ignoring a part of reality. A biological definition doesn’t include the inner world, and a subjective or inter-subjective definition doesn’t include the outer world. Reality isn’t just atoms and molecules and penises. It’s feelings, desires and social agreements. Likewise, a woman is a subjective experience, a social experience and an objective experience, all at once. A definition of woman that includes the inner and outer is far more accurate of everything that womanhood is.
I just want to end by saying that this call for a definition is usually used as a weapon in the culture war. Even though I’ve offered a definition that I believe is pretty good, trans people aren’t valid because we can come up with a sufficient reply to a gotcha. At the end of the day, our validity within culture is dependent on whether people choose to accept us as valid. It’s not about merely the right argument, but about a shift in the heart. I hope that someday that collective shift happens, regardless of how well we argue for our acceptance.
