Maya Forstater

however, right now, the concept of womanhood does exist. it has psychological importance for certain individuals (cis and trans). it has social and economic implications (typically but not always via misogyny). it has medical implications (for both cis and trans persons).

So when we think about defining womanhood - especially for the purposes of social policy to correct against discrimination - we must consider these roles and ask what we hope to achieve with the category, within our current context.

One thing we might hope for is to destroy the category socially. Then having breasts is just a trait like being tall or short or young or old. Another thing we might hope to do is to employ the history of the social category in order to fight against systems of social oppression

And while you might want to use it for medical purposes, but then, "having a cervix" is what puts you at risk for cervical cancer, and this is merely correlated with womanhood, not definitional (as we agree!)

So when we ask "who is a woman?", *especially* for the purposes of defining a #manel, we must think "who has the value of their work and their personhood dismissed and de-legitimised because they are a woman?" the answer is, all women, including trans woman.

That's a circular definition. People are dismissed and delegitimised for lots of reasons. Not all are women. How do people identify which ones to delegitimise "because they are women"? (what is the because?)

how do you think people do it? obviously through a combination of self-identification as women and where this is not available people are conditioned in our culture to use social/visual cues based on stereotypes.

When female fetuses are aborted, when baby girls are fed less, when boys are given trucks and blocks and girls given dolls and play kitchens, I don't think it is because these children declared their gender. I think it's because they are treated differently according to their sex