It’s been quite a source of frustration for me, when people like Matt Walsh limit the term ‘woman’ to simply mean ‘an adult human female.’ They’re effectively creating a definition that leaves room for a myriad of exceptions. It’s quite the oversimplification, don’t you think?
Let’s consider a few examples:
Wonder Woman, is she a woman? She’s a character of fiction, existing only within the realm of our imagination. Not an actual human being. Not an adult in a traditional sense. Yet, she’s still called a woman. It’s right there in the name.
What about an intersex woman with Swyer syndrome and XY chromosomes? She lives her life as a woman, no doubt about it. She is acknowledged as female by every individual she encounters. Looking at her, it would be preposterous to declare she’s anything but a woman.
And what about the term ‘girl’? Is it confined to young females? Certainly not. Adult women refer to themselves as ‘girls’ frequently. We even use it for horses, saying things like “Whoa girl!” And we don’t stop at animate beings, even inanimate objects get the label.
I’m a trans woman, and I haven’t been misgendered in years, in person or on the phone. My life is lived day in and day out as a woman. I’ve encountered people who are anti-trans, and they address me as ‘she/her,’ which I find somewhat amusing. Their rigid worldview crumbles when confronted with the concrete reality of my existence.
Okay, so ‘adult human female’ is a definition teeming with far too many exceptions. This makes us ponder: is there a definition of ‘woman’ devoid of exceptions? I believe there is. Here’s my take:
A woman is a human with a female gender identity, or an imposed gender identity in the case of those without the capacity to convey their subjective self-perception.
The above definition accounts for humans of all varieties, characters of fiction, animals, and even objects. As far as I can tell, it’s inclusive, but not overly complicated. In essence, it suggests that a girl or a woman is anyone who identifies themselves as such, unless they lack the capacity to express their subjective sense of self, in which case the identity is determined by the observer.
What’s your take on this?”
