Entry 2269, on 2023-04-12 at 18:46:23 (Rating 4, News)
Who would have thought that the question "what is a woman?" would have become something so prominent in modern society. In the past we have concentrated on questions like "what is the meaning of life?" or "is there a god?" or "what caused the Big Bang?", but now we have been reduced to concentrating on nonsense like this.
Like many of these ridiculous and superficial issues, it began in the US, and has spread across the world. Of course, the question arises as a result of trans ideology, where men who have transitioned are claimed to be women. Whether they are really women or not depends on your definitions, hence the question.
The word "woman" to some people means an "adult human female" but to others it means "someone who identifies as a woman". This second definition suffers from two issues: first, it contains the word it is defining in the definition itself, meaning it is circular; and second, it only has a loose similarity to the definition in the dictionary.
The primary definition in the Oxford English Dictionary for the word "woman" is "an adult female human being" but one secondary definition is "a person with the qualities traditionally associated with females" which leaves some room for alternative interpretations. By the way, "female" is defined as "of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes".
The word "gender" is often used to distinguish the societal aspects of sex, rather than "sex" which is used to denote the biological aspects. In the case a so-called trans woman could be a woman based on gender, but a man based on sex. Note that, until recently, gender and sex meant the same thing. According to the OED, "Although the words gender and sex are often used interchangeably, they have different connotations; sex tends to refer to biological differences, while gender more often refers to cultural and social differences and sometimes encompasses a broader range of identities than the binary of male and female."
The question "what is a woman?" has been used by people who want to expose the irrational ideology of the woke community towards trans issues. Asking it usually evokes either an antagonistic response, or a definition with logical fallacies like the one I mentioned above, or something which simply doesn't fit the facts.
In 2022, conservative commentator, Matt Walsh, made a documentary with the title "What is a Woman" which ridiculed the politically correct response to the question which included all of the types of answers I listed above, including from academics.
And recently here in New Zealand, journalist Sean Plunket asked our prime minister the question and received a rather unsatisfactory answer, including incoherent mumbling, and not much else.
After being condemned by some parts of the international media for how the pro-woman (or anti-trans, if you believe our media) activist, Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull (AKA Posie Parker) was treated when she visited the country, we are now being ridiculed further because of our prime minister not knowing what a woman is.
We all know that the PM knows exactly what a woman is, but why is he so scared to give the correct answer? Are trans activists really that scary? Obviously to the women who were beaten up by men pretending to be women at the Posie Parker event, they can be scary, but surely the PM isn't too worried.
Actually, I'm fairly sure a majority of people would be really impressed if he gave the correct answer, but the mainstream media would mercilessly attack him for it, and so would many people are naive enough that they take their cues on what is allowable from the media.
In debates on this subject that I engage in on-line, I often hear comments from my opponents which are just catch-phrases repeated from the media, such as "Posie Parker supports neo-Nazis" or she is "anti-trans", or Sean Plunket (an alternative media journalist) is "a racist" or "a white supremacist", or TERFs want to deny trans people "the right to exist" and encourage "trans genocide" (surely the most ridiculous hyperbole I've heard for a long time).
But when you challenge these people to show examples of these alleged character defects, they almost always have nothing; they just disappear from the conversation. They appear to have put no independent thought into the issue, and just accept what's in the media.
Even if the media were reliable and fair this would be quite bad, but the fact that they are horrendously biased makes it much worse. And even though the media have far less influence now than they did in the past, they still have enough to be incredibly harmful.
You might have thought that the PM making an idiot of himself, and by extension of the country, and being ridiculed in numerous overseas media, might be an event worthy of being reported by the New Zealand media, but I heard nothing. In comparison, when the previous PM, Jacinda Ardern, was mentioned in any positive way, we didn't hear the end of it.
I don't think the primary reason for this bias are the payments made to the media by the government, although that must have some influence. I think the media are just hugely woke and oriented towards the political left by nature, to a large extent because most journalists are trained (or indoctrinated if you prefer) by universities.
Alternative news sources, such as Sean Plunket's "The Platform" do offer some balance. They don't always get it right, of course, and I don't always agree with their perspective or style, but I think they are a very important source of information on topics which the mainstream either won't cover, or only cover in a very biased way.
Recently the Platform did get a story wrong, and as soon as this was shown to be the case the story was retracted and an apology was published. I have never seen the MSM do this, except in extreme situations such as when they are threatened with legal action.
When I see a story in any source, including the mainstream or alternative media, I don't assume it is true. In fact, I usually assume it is either false or misleading, and I am often right. When I see something, especially if I want it to be true because it fits my views, I research it further to check how accurate it is.
It would be great if everyone had this attitude, because truth is important. But politicians and the media just don't seem to agree.
As usual, Owen, in depth analysis and rationale and matchless deliberation.
I can add nothing at all to the substance of your piece, but an imp of mischief prompts me to recall that old pronouncement in Kipling's "The Betrothed" - "a woman is only a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke."
Naturally I note that, in these twisted days of "presentism" where the actions of the past are judged and assailed in terms of today's "values", one would hardly dare to articulate, let alone think, such a thought.
I once participated in a protest march against healthcare cuts in NZ healthcare. Nazis turned up to that event as well. So does that mean I associate with Nazis?
Comment 4 by OJB on 2023-04-19 at 20:32:37:
Well, apparently it does, but those Nazis turn up in all sorts of odd places, don't they?
Comment 5 by Anonymous on 2023-04-20 at 11:10:08:
I have to agree with most of this. I shook my head in disbelief when I heard RNZ news readers talking about "1 in 10 women and females assigned at birth" suffer from endometriosis.
Comment 6 by OJB on 2023-04-20 at 11:19:53:
It’s all about this ridiculous virtue signalling echo chamber the woke mob live in. Everything has to include some element of woke politics: pro-Maori BS, LGBTQIA+ politics, BLM, or any other nonsense that suits their whims. It really has become quite tedious.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE