#what is a woman

[fanfic-lover-girl]

Love how people are quick to use intersex people as their argument scapegoat. Trans women can believe they are not men all they like but they sure as hell are not women. Tired of living in this delulu land where feelings weigh more than reality!

[radsplain]

the gag is that everyone knows what a woman is and there is absolutely no confusion about it whatsoever. not even amongst the most zealous of tras

[quasi-dilla]

In the unfortunately common discourse of "What is a woman?", I feel that TRAs/gender ideologues/etc. completely forget the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition. The production of ova is a sufficient condition to being a woman: that is, if you produce ova, you are a woman. It is not a necessary condition, meaning that you can be a woman who doesn't produce ova. Similarly, production of sperm is a sufficient condition to being a man.

I'm sick of dealing with people who don't even understand the words they're using.

[saint-augustines-pears]

Actually, no, we should know what a woman is. If you’re going to challenge a term, you have to come up with a new definition. If we are going to have a rational conversation, all terms must be defined.

If woman doesn’t mean adult female human, what does it mean? If you’re getting defensive reading this, that’s a problem. You should be able to know what you’re arguing for. You should be able to tell people what you’re arguing for. Otherwise, what the fuck are you even doing? Why are you arguing about something that, if undefined, logically does not exist?

I would love for everyone to be happy. Delusion is not happiness. I need to know whether this is delusion or not.

[regularwomen]

You say you feel like a woman. Why does that make you a woman?

There are people who feel they are animals. Why aren’t they animals?

There are people who feel like they are fictional characters. Why aren’t they fictional characters?

There are people who feel like they are people of colour. Why aren’t they people of colour?

Why is womanhood uniquely available for parody and mockery? Why is woman a term that can’t be strictly defined? What is it you feel that is inherent to womanhood? I don’t think most women feel anything like that, does that make them not women? Are you somehow an expert on womanhood to the point that you can say that what you feel is related to being a women, despite not being one?

What is a woman?

Why does that make you a woman?

[beirarowling]

Never forget!

[lorynna]

So close radfem isn't a thing because you don't support all women. So you are not a feminist and will never be one. Stop looking for validation and maybe do smth with that air head >-<

i support ALL women (definition: adult human female with at least one X-Chromosome and with no functioning SRY-gene) ❤️

[feminismisstillahatemovement]

Reminder that "What Is A Woman", the best and most important documentary of the past year, is still available to watch for free on Twitter here, with over 180 million views in the past 10 days.

[prolifeproliberty]

What cracks me up the most is how much leftists hate Matt Walsh and yet can’t identify him in a wig using the name Matt and speaking in his normal deadpan voice

I’m curious how many more of these kinds of things he can do before the leftists start studying his picture and videos so they don’t accidentally sit down for an interview with him 😂

[butch-reidentified]

if you think agp is a thing(and presumably exclusive to trans women) what do you think of cis women claiming to masturbate in front of mirrors and CIA women who report being aroused by breastfeeding?

literally every single answer to these questions is available on my blog. I'm tired of writing the same posts over and over and over. if you can't find sufficient answers scrolling my blog, searching key words on my blog (or on google citing my blog, which yields better results oftentimes), going through the links in my pinned, or checking the tags referenced in my pinned, then I'd say if it's reeeeally important to you to get answers, your best bet will be to sit tight and occasionally check for updates to my Pinned as I am gradually adding more and more links detailing my views, and/or skim my blog from time to time - it's pretty much guaranteed to cycle through again within a month at most 🤷

I was actually gonna put a partial (that is to say, just not my usual thorough, detailed, and nuanced) answer at the beginning, but honestly I'm getting VERY tired of anonymous strangers who most likely just stumbled across my blog for the first time today thinking they're entitled to a personalized thinkpiece from me when almost every time I get an ask like this (which are distinctly different from good faith curiosities, which I'm more than happy to answer), I've already posted my answer, I've already written about the subject in depth on my blog. so I'll put my answer below instead so you have to read all of the above first, so you at least sort of vaguely kinda earn some response by putting in a miniscule fraction of the work/time I've put into both reading/informing myself about all sorts of different opinions, ideologies, experiences, perspectives, and views (rather than just demanding opinions from strangers on anon, lmao) and writing countless posts (& that's just on here, ignoring the offline side which is where I'm wayyy more active), which are almost always VERY long and detailed and proofread and edited and polished several times over.

btw, kind of a side note -- I have NEVER sent a single anon in my life, and I have NEVER, anonymously or not, demanded someone give me a personalized just-for-me explanation of their opinions (or any at all). the reason I call this entitlement is because you (most likely) aren't asking out of genuine curiosity or good faith. you (most likely) are asking because you dislike what you think my views are (you are most likely misinformed and think I believe things I do not) and you (most likely) think this is some kind of gotcha rather than the same ignorant, unoriginal, boring ass points that I've read countless times as far back as when I was a transactivist and trans-identifying myself. they've been debunked/responded to by a LOT of other women, too, and I'm very confident you could easily find at least one such response. I'm not holding you to a standard I don't also hold myself to; in fact, that I'm going to give you any degree of actual answer at all is demonstrative of my holding myself to a HIGHER standard. because again, nothing I'm about to say on this topic is just now in this post being born into the universe as a novel thought. or even a novel tumblr post; like I said, you could find the radfem answers to this ask yourself with just a tiny bit of effort - and while radfems are far from a monolith, and I am a frequent vocal dissenter on a variety of radblr hot topics, this isn't even really a matter of opinion. read on to find out why.

Part A - Not answering the questions here per se, but a clarification of terminology that may help you (any reader, not necessarily anon) see my perspective:

The word "cis" has different definitions. It used to mean someone who is not trans, whereas trans referred to sex-dysphoric transitioners, a demographic who now often prefer terms like transsexual or transsex or simply "sex-dysphoric" BECAUSE they don't agree with gender identity ideology (GII) and object to the way GII has been actively hostile to them and erased transsexuality (and thus their identities, needs, beliefs, and experiences as well), similarly to the ways in which GII engages with pretty much everything that isn't complete and total blind allegiance. These include but are far from limited to:

1. Obfuscating people's (especially children's/young adults' - as they are the primary consumers of most GII content by far) understanding of biology, particularly as it pertains to the sexes of human beings and sexual dimorphism, and inserting "gender identity" as a direct (but importantly not synonymous or remotely parallel) replacement for the material and biological reality of sex. Sex, absent patriarchy and the gender construct, is simply a neutral and factual categorization of human beings: sex categorizes human body types according to the two developmental pathways that evolved solely for the purpose of producing one gamete type or the other to enable perpetuation of the species via sexual reproduction. What this statement does NOT imply to anyone reading it with even an ounce of integrity/intellectual honesty: "women are defined by having babies," "infertile/childfree adult female humans are not women," "humans with anomalous sexual development of any variety are not male or female, but rather a 3rd sex or even proof sex is a spectrum," or anything along these lines; I refer to these arguments as intellectually dishonest because they are originally intentional (disinformation -> misinformation) misinterpretations & serve to moralize, dogmatize, and essentially theologize facts of nature.

This obfuscation of biology is committed via a variety of tactics that frequently include outright gaslighting; "gender and sex are different" turned into "sex is actually a spectrum" (it's not - read on to learn why not!) and then outright science denial while gaslighting others as being the unscientific, uneducated, "3rd grade understanding of biology" ones (again, this is simply factually not true*).

*Feel free to request to see a peer-reviewed neuroscience journal publication bearing my name and/or my thesis (original research regarding the overlapping genetics + epigenetics of norepinephrine dysregulation in both dysautonomia and attention deficit disorders) if you are skeptical of my credentials regarding biology. alternatively, feel free to cite your sources and I will provide a free-of-charge peer review service :)

2. Building from #1, the erasure of patriarchal sex-based oppression of women & girls (by definition: human beings of the female sex, adults & children respectively) via aforementioned tactics obfuscating sex biology & human biology in favor of an innate, internal "gender identity" which is extremely poorly defined with the individual "gender identities" themselves left utterly non-delineated. Gender identity ideology is to be taken entirely on pure faith, despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to support gender identity as a universal component of human beings/universal human experience. In fact, the existence of absolutely any nonzero quantity of human beings who do not experience gender identity firmly disproves it as universal human experience - and we know not all humans have a gender identity. However, every human being experiences sexual development, be it typical, disordered (DSDs, congenital infertility, etc), or otherwise anomalous; the vast majority experience typical sexual development, and one's sex is entirely clear in the vast majority of atypical cases as well. Female humans are oppressed on the basis of our biological reproductive capabilities; patriarchy desires control over the female sex as a direct product of its desire to control reproduction. Patriarchy created the gender construct to instill and enforce a caste system between the sexes upholding the patriarchal dogma of male supremacy and female inferiority. Similarly, patriarchy created father-gods in order to make the creation of life a male act. Erasure of sex in favor of the gender construct serves male supremacy and cannot ever be anti-patriarchal or feminist. Evidence of sex based oppression abounds offline (frankly, you need look no further than menstruation stigma in all its forms up to and including menstrual huts, but there is infinitely more evidence) and right here on my blog as well; I even have some posts tagged to serve as proof of sex based oppression.

3. Erasing homosexuality via working toward erasure of exclusive same-sex attraction (this is particularly targeted at lesbians, and this is VERY well documented. I have many examples of this in my TRA Receipts tag, including a particularly excellent masterpost containing, in total iirc THOUSANDS of screenshots), once again replacing sex with "gender identity" as if one's orientation being defined as attraction to another human's invisible, internal, and highly individual "gender identity," which not all humans even purport to have in the first place, could possibly make any sense. This is uniquely absurd.

As stated in the 2nd link in #1 on my Pinned, I object to the usage of "cis" for non-trans-identifying people. Why? At the core of it, because the most commonplace definition of "cis"/'cisgender" that I see at this point in time is "having a gender identity that aligns with what was assigned at birth." As stated above, gender identity is not universal, rendering "cisgender" equally as personal and internal of an identity label as "transgender" - and these are not a pure dichotomy by any means. Radical feminism does not grant any degree of objective factual legitimacy to the gender construct; thus, no radical feminist is or can be, by definition, transgender or cisgender (this does not carry over to whether or not radfems can have dysphoria or even be medically transitioned). Radfems are not the only humans without "gender identities," and it is dishonest and disrespectful to force the term/label onto everyone else according to an ideology we/they may not share.

Part B - The Long-Awaited Answer! [I changed my mind since this ended up significantly longer than initially planned so here ya go]

Autogynephilia was coined as a term with a specific definition. That definition is still the same one in use today. That definition explicitly states that only males can qualify. That definition is: "a paraphilia that describes when a man experiences sexual arousal from the thought of himself as a woman" per Google, and "a male's propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female" per Blanchard's original stated intention for the term he created. Wikipedia goes on to add "intending for the term to refer to 'the full gamut of erotically arousing cross-gender behaviors and fantasies.'"

I have many criticisms of Blanchard himself and of the quality of his research methodologies. However, the evidence for the existence of the paraphilia itself is abundant and undeniable given that many males outright refer to themselves as autogynephiles and many have openly discussed their experiences as someone with this paraphilia. What I do not believe is that all trans-identifying males are AGPs, that there is proven legitimacy to the HSTS/AGP dichotomy (even Blanchard himself said not all OSA trans-identifying males are AGPs - just a whole lot of them), or that non-trans-identifying males can't be AGPs - actually I think it's likely that most AGPs don't identify as transgender.

The core of the paraphilia, the source of the arousal, is a product of the patriarchal sex caste system; autogynephiles are aroused by the idea of themselves as women - as they themselves have stated - because of the sexual objectification of femaleness and/or because they're aroused by degradation and humiliation (as is blatantly obviously on brilliant display in the existence of and obsession with "forced feminization" and similar female-degrading sexual concepts), and the AGP male views femaleness and the gender that patriarchy has forcibly ascribed to femaleness ("femininity") as inferior and thus sees his engagement in performing femininity as degrading - which in turn sexually excites him.

One reason some women find themselves arousing in their own bodies and natural non-performative states is the same as when men find themselves arousing in their own bodies and natural non-performative states: self-confidence increases libido and associations can be made between A and B. Where women and men inevitably differ, however, is about the arousal surrounding performing femininity and/or sexual self-objectification. It is not at all unreasonable to speculate that some women can be turned on when they "feel hot" for a reason other than just self-confidence; for one speculative example, it's possible that some women may see herself in the mirror all dressed up in hypersexualized clothing and feel that they've succeeded in mirroring the pornified images and sexually-appealing-to-males beauty expectations. Ultimately, this is self-objectification. It's patriarchy and the male gaze that have forced these associations onto all of society, and hypersexual associations have a tendency of causing sexual arousal in people (duh).

Oh and I've never heard of women being aroused by breastfeeding, only complaining about it being painful asf, but like. Nipples are among the most common and well-documented non-genital erogenous areas so? This seems terribly unlikely to be a common phenomenon, but utterly irrelevant to the existence of autogynephilia regardless lol. If this is a thing, like I said I doubt it's commonplace at all, but even just hypothetically, I'd say it would distinctly fall in line with everything else I say in this answer. Patriarchy and its pornographers have indeed sexualized breastfeeding - there are a concerning number of men who ask their partners NOT TO BREASTFEED their babies - his own children! - because it makes him JEALOUS and even resent the baby. I'm dead serious you can look this up, it happens. So... read on for elaboration.

I neither know nor care precisely what you're referencing in this ask, because the answer remains the same: autogynephilia by definition can only affect males, and males who have a fetish for the idea of themselves as female, be that through imagining themselves Fucked (anatomically female, specifically in a sexually objectified - aka Fucked - manner; the anatomical/biological form of autogynephilia fetishizes the male subject imagining himself as the female Fucked object of pornography) or Feminine (as discussed above) fundamentally are not and cannot be the same as women who are turned on by feeling like they look sexually appealing or by their own natural anatomy or biological functions (which have been violently hypersexualized by patriarchy). This is a form of internalized misogyny; when men do it, it's just misogyny. These are not the same.

[elierlick]

I spoke with NBC about how What Is a Woman? inspired a new form of far-right pseudo-documentary. Deceptive editing that aims to delegitimize the existence of trans people isn't innovative, but it is more widespread now than ever (link)

[radsplain]

a TRA talking point about "cis privilege" that drives me absolutely insane is the idea that "cis" women (ie. adult human females), who "ID with the gender that aligns with their birth sex, have never had to think critically about their identity as women and take their womanhood for granted, while trans women, who do not have the same privilege, have had to critically think about and dissect their identity as women, and therefore understand the nuances and complexities of womanhood more intimately than cis women ever will."

it's just completely nonsensical, for multiple reasons.

firstly, the idea that trans women appreciate and understand their "womanhood" more intimately than "cis" women ever will is downright laughable when you realize that gender ideology is built upon a post-modern faith-based spiritual belief that identifying as something actually does indeed make you that thing. like by that logic, Rachel Delezol, who identifies as a black woman even though she's ethnically caucasian, understands and appreciates her identity as a black woman more than actual black women because she wasn't granted with "race privilege," despite being born as a white woman (this is also a funny parallel to how statistically, most "trans women" are white, heterosexual males; people who by all accounts are born with the epitome of privilege).

that besides, how can trans-identified males understand womanhood more than actual women, when they've never and will never know what it's like to be a woman (ie. adult human female), and all of the stages of development and embodiment that entails, from birth all the way until death? how does a trans-identified male appreciate his "womanhood" more than an actual woman, when, when asked how he knew he was even a woman in the first place, can only come up with sexist, regressive stereotypes that align with the fake, man-made, misogynistic version of womanhood we call "femininity"?

secondly, the insane idea that "cis" women haven't had to critically dissect or think about our "gender identity" and therefore don't appreciate or understand womanhood like trans women do is such a blatant form of gaslighting and rewriting of base reality.

the reality is, actual women do not "identify" as women. your first mistake was believing that we all buy into the dissociative, disembodied concept of "gender identity." your second mistake was believing that being a woman means being content with the sexist, regressive, misogynistic gender roles that have been placed on the female sex in the form of femininity. what makes women women is not identifying with harmful, patriarchal stereotypes of gender; it's being female. women don't "identify" as women any more than people identify as blonde or brunette, 5'2 or 5'6, far-sighted or near-sighted, etc. you either ARE those things or you aren't. you either ARE an adult human female or you're not. your body is EITHER oriented around producing large, immobile gametes (despite the lack or ability of proper functionality) or it's not. you either ARE a woman or you're not. we do not use the term 'woman' as a form of gender self-identification. we use it as a form of class identification and categorization to describe the material differences in humans based on biological sex. that's literally it.

women don't need to "appreciate" or "critically dissect" our existence as women to be women, because we simply ARE. end of.

[victusinveritas]

[theexodvs]

A woman is someone who covers their drink when an outspoken autogynephile is in the same room.

[ovafexx]

Call me what I am: I am a woman.

[trexalicious]

Matt Walsh is an American political commentator. My cousins and I are going to go see this based on the trailer. He also put out 'What is a woman' which trys to understand the 'logic' behind the gender ideology movement...