Biologist here. The main problem with this argument is that Rowling is trying to win her argument through scientizing, and is not only doing it in an inept way, but in a way that’s completely ironic.
She’s invoking biology, but infortunately she’s adopting an approach that incorporates a high school level of biology. When we start teaching science, we start with highly simplified presentations of the major topics, then build both in breadth and depth from there. If you really want to get down the rabbit hole of sex determination (and multiple definitions of genetic and phenotypical “sex”), you really need to get into molecular biology, genetics, and developmental biology. She’s been advised of this multiple times by multiple experts, so at this point it’s willful ignorance.
The painfully ironic part is that she’s relying on an area where she has no expertise in order to make her point, while ignoring the fact that, as a world-known literary figure, she should know that the applicable part of the definition of “woman” is linguistic and semiotic - which is to say it’s cultural. The definition of “woman” was different in the 1940s South, among the 17th century pilgrims, the Algonquin tribes, cultures throughout sub-equatorial Africa, and so on.
The definition of “woman” was different in the 1940s South, among the 17th century pilgrims, the Algonquin tribes, cultures throughout sub-equatorial Africa, and so on.
Can you give an example? Not trying to be a bigot, just curious.
In examining sex and gender in Igbo society today, it is evident that colonisation was not just an event. Colonisation is a structure, an unhealed wound that remains open to this day, in the form of Western gender norms among multiple other manifestations.
However, this was weakened by the flexible gender system of traditional Igbo culture and language. As Ifi explained, a major component of this gender framework was that “male roles were open to certain categories of women through such practices as “nhanye”- “male daughters” and “igba ohu” – “female husbands”
What, you’re telling me that boywives were real all along!?
There’s entire branches of research on this, but I think one of the easiest ways to approach it for starting out is to think of the word “womanly.”
having or denoting qualities and characteristics traditionally associated with or expected of women.
I would strike the word “traditionally” from that definition since we’re talking about a comparative and differential analysis and concentrate on the “qualities and characteristics” part. Although most people in the US today wouldn’t think of it this way, imagine the perception of a woman army officer commanding male troops in 1845. You can take the same approach when looking through history or across cultures. What roles, qualities, and characteristics are associated with “women” and how do they differ and evolve?
There’s some complexity when you get into the details - indigenous cultures change when they come into contact with, say, colonialism, and the people who studied them might themselves be observing through their own prejudices. History is replete with examples of British colonialists being unable to properly deal with things like the egalitarian democracies of the northern indigenous peoples or the matriarchal social structures. Picture the used car dealership where the salesman still insists on engaging with the man even though it’s the woman buying the car.
Semantics is the study of the meaning of words, and semiotics is the study of symbology. When we’re talking about these things, we’re talking about how the ideas and symbols associated with the idea-token “woman” differ.
The reason why this is important is that this is the crux of the transphobic argument. Their argument is cultural, not biological (although like I said, even their biology is sketchy).
I think a great study that includes cross cultural anthropological analysis of the role of women, as well as politics and economics, is David Graeber’s The Dawn of Everything.
Sorry if this question seems stupid, but you seem to really know what you’re talking about.
My understanding is that the main issues TERFs have is protecting women’s spaces, and that by having a vague or arbitrary definition of womanhood it erodes those spaces.
I personally would like to see a society that’s far less focused on gender and minimises that kind of segregation outside of medical necessity. But I know that’s quite extreme and I don’t have a “perfect” solution, assuming we’re going to keep things like women’s only gyms, domestic violence shelters, and professional sports.
Judging based on “passing” is clearly transphobic and ignores any kind of intersex/non-binary presentation. As well as some masculine featured afab women somehow failing. And basing on biology is clearly flawed. So if it’s not too much trouble what would your suggestion be?
The person you asked your question of claims to be a biologist, but you dismiss the relevance of biology.
…basing on biology is clearly flawed…
It sounds like you might be more interested in an answer from a sociologist. Or are you asking the biologist to argue that basing it on biology is not flawed?
Biologist here. The main problem with this argument is that Rowling is trying to win her argument through scientizing, and is not only doing it in an inept way, but in a way that’s completely ironic.
She’s invoking biology, but infortunately she’s adopting an approach that incorporates a high school level of biology. When we start teaching science, we start with highly simplified presentations of the major topics, then build both in breadth and depth from there. If you really want to get down the rabbit hole of sex determination (and multiple definitions of genetic and phenotypical “sex”), you really need to get into molecular biology, genetics, and developmental biology. She’s been advised of this multiple times by multiple experts, so at this point it’s willful ignorance.
The painfully ironic part is that she’s relying on an area where she has no expertise in order to make her point, while ignoring the fact that, as a world-known literary figure, she should know that the applicable part of the definition of “woman” is linguistic and semiotic - which is to say it’s cultural. The definition of “woman” was different in the 1940s South, among the 17th century pilgrims, the Algonquin tribes, cultures throughout sub-equatorial Africa, and so on.
Can you give an example? Not trying to be a bigot, just curious.
here’s one example for you (click here) exploring igbo gender norms
here’s a second report that’s worth reading too (click here)
i don’t have much knowledge about the other cultures suggested, others can provide info for those
Thank you for this article. Deeply interesting.
What, you’re telling me that boywives were real all along!?
There’s entire branches of research on this, but I think one of the easiest ways to approach it for starting out is to think of the word “womanly.”
I would strike the word “traditionally” from that definition since we’re talking about a comparative and differential analysis and concentrate on the “qualities and characteristics” part. Although most people in the US today wouldn’t think of it this way, imagine the perception of a woman army officer commanding male troops in 1845. You can take the same approach when looking through history or across cultures. What roles, qualities, and characteristics are associated with “women” and how do they differ and evolve?
There’s some complexity when you get into the details - indigenous cultures change when they come into contact with, say, colonialism, and the people who studied them might themselves be observing through their own prejudices. History is replete with examples of British colonialists being unable to properly deal with things like the egalitarian democracies of the northern indigenous peoples or the matriarchal social structures. Picture the used car dealership where the salesman still insists on engaging with the man even though it’s the woman buying the car.
Semantics is the study of the meaning of words, and semiotics is the study of symbology. When we’re talking about these things, we’re talking about how the ideas and symbols associated with the idea-token “woman” differ.
The reason why this is important is that this is the crux of the transphobic argument. Their argument is cultural, not biological (although like I said, even their biology is sketchy).
I think a great study that includes cross cultural anthropological analysis of the role of women, as well as politics and economics, is David Graeber’s The Dawn of Everything.
Sorry if this question seems stupid, but you seem to really know what you’re talking about.
My understanding is that the main issues TERFs have is protecting women’s spaces, and that by having a vague or arbitrary definition of womanhood it erodes those spaces.
I personally would like to see a society that’s far less focused on gender and minimises that kind of segregation outside of medical necessity. But I know that’s quite extreme and I don’t have a “perfect” solution, assuming we’re going to keep things like women’s only gyms, domestic violence shelters, and professional sports.
Judging based on “passing” is clearly transphobic and ignores any kind of intersex/non-binary presentation. As well as some masculine featured afab women somehow failing. And basing on biology is clearly flawed. So if it’s not too much trouble what would your suggestion be?
The person you asked your question of claims to be a biologist, but you dismiss the relevance of biology.
It sounds like you might be more interested in an answer from a sociologist. Or are you asking the biologist to argue that basing it on biology is not flawed?
The biologist is arguing that segregating based on biology is flawed. I think I was agreeing with them.
Sorry if that wasn’t clear. And you are right my question doesn’t make sense, they’re just saying you can’t segregate on biology