Defining a ‘Woman' – It’s Not That Straight Forward

Introduction

Defining what a woman is when life, I suppose, was a little more ‘black and white’, and no one would probably argue or challenge it. If we struggled, then a trusted dictionary would come to the rescue. However, even that isn’t as crystal clear or scientifically grounded.  With all the furore and attention over everything that has passed in the gender debate, and of course, the transwoman descriptors, even the government (PM Kier Starmer) was asked a ‘point-blank’ question. They dithered on the obvious staring them in the face, or not, not wanting to ‘go out on any limb’, which I suggest was probably the expected response.

Nevertheless, the anti-trans activists jumped all over this piece of simple information and turned it all on its head to suit their own agenda.  Ask any member of their movement, and they will challenge you with the phrase “Define Woman”.  The anti-trans movement has gathered a head of steam over the last ten years, and self-described theocratic fascists such as Matt Walsh, who made a propaganda movie called ‘What is a Woman?’; somewhat predictably, this was praised by JK Rowling with the comment of how a brave man had finally come up with the answer that thousands of feminists struggled with for years. Naturally, it was to fit a certain ‘Modus Operandi’ as hindsight teaches us all.  However, the question from a psychiatric and philosophical standpoint is also fundamentally flawed and broken. This short paper will give the reader an insight into why and cover the intricacies and pitfalls I have mentioned in my title.

Definition of the Word Define

Depending on the literature you are referring to or search engine you use, and where you seek your definition, there are generally four of these that are relevant to this paper; the fifth one, which you can find, sadly fails to be applicable or relevant, but we will throw it in for completeness.

Narrative Definitions

These definitions are of a type that give us a brief description of a word's meaning, often found in your dictionaries at home, online or in a library.  These are predominantly colloquial definitions insofar as they are sufficient for normal conversation. But they are remarkably lacking in the minutiae of a subject matter.

A platitude that’s often ‘peddled’ by any high ****** or university tutor in the early years is that a poor essay in university will start with the phrase “Webster's Dictionary Defines”; I am scoffing here, but I remember when some of my own essays started that way.  Many years later, as a lecturer, I cringe and now teach that this is bad practice, and I will mark a piece of work down.  The definition is too generalised to be used in any substantive work, certainly at high ****** and university; however, when you delve into the background.  Examining this more deeply, there is no real attempt to seek any deeper reading.  I have seen many students at all levels try this approach and fudge their way through an essay or paper without putting in the required work and effort.

These types of definitions in dictionaries are sometimes termed as ‘reportive’, as that’s what a dictionary's purpose is. 

WOMAN Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

Jeremy David Hanson, 34, terrorised Merriam-Webster over its trans-inclusive definitions and was sentenced on Friday (14 April 2023) to one year and one day in prison as well as three years of supervised release after pleading guilty to two counts of interstate communication of threatening communications to commit violence. Hanson fundamentally misunderstood how a dictionary worked and failed to see that they are not documents of how language should be used, but rather how language is used. 

Man sentenced for Merriam-Webster anti-trans threats

An example in the real world would be that if we are using the term ‘woman’ to describe transwomen (they are), then it would be reasonable to assume that the dictionary should state that fact.  If I remember my own days at junior and high ******, that’s what their job was.

I feel that this is not flattering and that (as Hanson alleged) they were, and I quote, “lying”.  On the other hand, if we are using the term ‘woman’ to describe transwomen and the dictionary fails to report that fact, that straightforwardly means that they haven’t caught up yet with the new definition.  Also, it should be noted that dictionaries are not an authority on the correct usage, rather that’s the area of style and phraseology works, which are only correct and accurate in a distinct context; normally, a publication or institution.

The Trans Exclusionary Feminists (TERFs) have taken the dictionary definition as a holy grail from a higher being; it's simply just incorrect.  Even then, I have seen many inaccurate quotes, so they can’t even get that one simplistic thing correct. The anti-trans activists are adamant that the dictionary definition of a ‘woman’ is “adult human female”; it's not, it's actually “adult female human”. Basic English language says that the respective two noun meanings in italics are profoundly different, as ‘female’ as an adjective has a different meaning from ‘female’ as a noun.  I have met many ‘real’ feminists, and they would, by and large, agree that the latter is dehumanising and better used to describe animals; this is why you will hear misogynists quoting this.  

I once witnessed a demonstration in Hyde Park, London, by some TERFs during a Pride event when they infamously referred to a hen as an “adult human chicken”.  The crowd was thoroughly amused by the level and quality of ignorance on display, and it demonstrates that TERFs have more in common with misogynists than the feminists they claim to align with.

I think it's clear that the question “what is a woman” appears to be structured and intended to ridicule anyone who tackles the question seriously, and dismisses the deep historical feminist ideals, and does exactly that.  A better use of the TERFs' time if they were interested, instead of replacing inquiry with assumption, reading Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex (1949); they would read Elizabeth Spelman’s Inessential Women (1988); they would read Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble (1990); they would read Alison Phipps’ Me, Not You (2020). These are all books that have been written on this subject, avoided like the plague by the anti-trans activists, which can be watered down to just three words

The sole reason the TERFs want a definition is exactly that they don’t want to read a book.  An analogy may sound like this: unlike a schoolchild disputing something in a dictionary, this isn’t because of apathy or languor, but rather it is a means to an end.  Any definition that is adequate and multifaceted ceases to be a definition and grows into a discussion.  The average anti-trans activist really isn’t interested in discussion; they wish an abrupt end to any discussion.  In our own experiences and lives, we know that discussion involves acknowledging possibilities that some would rather disregard.  Their tactic is that they will demand an immediate end to a question that has been debated for the past seventy-five years in the feminist movement.

These stylish definitions in their manufacture are very reductive and therefore foster a reductive ideology.  This type of ideology has a positive effect as it privileges the majority, placing a burden of pressure on the minority.  

In psychology, we often talk about outliers and how an effect like this makes them non-entities. The map of the world at this juncture looks bleak for trans people, with all the bigotry and reductionist influences closely connected, and this is why the anti-trans activists and bigots are so captivated with reportive definitions.

Precising Definitions

Legal documents are the area where we find precise definitions and take the form of a rule or set of rules that demarcate the margins of a given category.  Therefore, and secondarily, it may be concerned with the meaning of the word, although its primary purpose is as a filter to separate across several separate cases that are embedded in a category from cases that may be excluded

The problem with these precise definitions is that they can create clear boundaries about what's in and what's out, but mostly those boundaries are set wherever the dictator wishes them to be set and what they want.  The danger here is that setting boundaries incorrectly may have unintended and skewed results.

Once the TERFs are alerted to the mistaken definition in the dictionary, which has made them look foolish, they start the conversation of how women are the producers of “large immotile gametes” (I have witnessed this rhetoric), when it was pointed out that some women have non-functional ovaries.  They retreat and quickly move this to the intention to produce large immotile gametes.  To add to this discussion, I fall into this category here; so, does this make me not a ‘woman’? Of course, not, that’s ridiculous.  What's even more ridiculous is that they quote rubbish, and I return to their clumsy phraseology, “Intended by Whom”.  If we are to believe this rhetoric, are we not starting to disappear down another ‘rabbit hole’ called creationism?

What is Creationism? - CARM

I digress here, but I think it’s obvious that people are smarter and more patient than I am going to assume in this paper about what’s right and wrong with their definitions.  Nevertheless, I feel it's imperative that at the end of the day, the TERFs have only provided a definition they want, in short, ‘it’s a loaded gun’ and a loaded statement. Their ultimate agenda here is that they desire women to be included and transgender women to be excluded; this is the sum of everything they are defining: basic exclusionism.  Plus, they are going around the houses to inform us of something we already know, but without any justification following it.

My own educated suspicion is that they hope by taking the scenic route, it will discombobulate people, performing some sort of rhetorical magic or sleight of hand to simulate that purpose follows definition, when in fact it’s the other way around.  These types of definitions strictly but all definitions to some points are created for a purpose, and to feign that the purpose they are created is justified by their very creation is to use a conclusion as a premise: something we call in psychology as circular reasoning or a logical fallacy 

Stipulating Definitions

The third definition is my area and is often found in academic writings.  I use them all the time as my language and phraseology, as in academic circles, different authors may use the same word to mean different things, making it a fundamental rule that we make it clear in our own work what it means.

While I have a personal interest in linguistics an example of stipulative reasoning is the riddle of induction by Nelson Goodman. “grue” was stipulated to be “a property object that makes it appear green if observed before some future time, and blue if observed afterward. Standard English dictates that “grue” has no meaning therefore Goodman created this new term and gave it a stipulative definition. When we utilise a word in academic writing, it may be different from what other people expect, so it is necessary to stipulate what we mean by the term.

Nelson Goodman (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The takeaway point from this definition is that a definition need not be global and permanent.  That level of obligation is not necessary, or even helpful.  In some cases, a definition may be provisional and explicit to an author, a discipline or even a single discussion.

Conventionally, with academic writing, you must be specific about how you define words; in this instance, everyone is clear; this would, for example, avoid an editor misinterpreting what you meant and causing rewrites.  In some cases, and more informally, many want to challenge the notion of “words mean stuff”.  As I alluded to earlier, with circular thinking, this is another fallacy of division. In academia, sentences, paragraphs, documents and books all mean things and contain words; many assume that the meaning comes from the words with the other words around, so creating a contextual body.  Earlier in this text, when we discussed the “adult human female”, solely the same words can be altered, and the result is a different meaning; to say nothing of combining words with different words.  In some situations, words may suggest meaning, but context is more substantive.

When we look at the context and what a word means, we may discover that it means something different in another context. If you look at any dictionary and its layout, you will see that the entries are numerical and list multiple definitions for the same; similarly to a thesaurus.  Many would try to argue a word should have a singular meaning, which is just sheer stupidity, as that’s not the way the English language is constructed, even though nonsensical at times.

These people have probably neither read the book nor understood the text, and this newspeak means having new words to describe stuff.  It should be observed that newspeak is subject to the same cynical naming convention as many other elements of English Socialism; its purpose is rather to impede new things from being expressible.  Anyone reading George Orwell's 1984 will relate to what I am stating here: if not, Orwell made clear his thinking in the appendix to 1984.

INGSOC in 1984 Explained - Book Analysis

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the worldview and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever.

Although anti-trans activists use ideology as a snarl-word, they are enthralled in an ideological war to create a singular definition that expresses their own ideology and prohibits the expression of other ideologies.

Ostensive Definitions

An ostensive definition conveys the meaning of a term by pointing out examples. This type of definition is often used where the term is difficult to define verbally, either because the words will not be understood (as with children and new speakers of a language) or because of the nature of the term (such as colours or sensations). It is usually accompanied by a gesture pointing to the object serving as an example, and for this reason is also often referred to as "definition by pointing".

I certainly don’t. But I have an idea of what shellfish are because I know a bunch of things that are included in that category.

Unfortunately, this doctrine rapidly becomes tricky when it concerns the categorisation of people.  The application of ostensive definitions to women has resulted in an egocentric example.  “A woman is someone who is like me”.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the 19th-century American suffragist, co-founded the first Women’s Rights Convention in Seneca Falls and authored the groundbreaking Declaration of Sentiments, boldly demanding equal rights—including the right to vote—for women in 1848.   Objecting to the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, which gave men the right to vote regardless of race, arguing that women should have the right to vote at the same time as or before “the lower orders of Chinese, Africans, Germans and Irish.”

Elizabeth Cady Stanton | National Women's History Museum

Tacit in this objection is an understanding that “Chinese, African, German and Irish” women don’t count. Cady Stanton thought that women should be, like her, wealthy, educated, and white (not the incorrect kind of white).  Although controversial, Stanton modified her ideas later in life, asserting that women's rights should be open to any colour or creed, 

I suppose seeking a modicum of impartiality, Stanton did reverse this position later in life, declaring that women’s rights should be open to any colour or creed, and should extend beyond suffrage, but right now I want to focus on her earlier position that a woman is someone like her.

We now know that ostensive definitions confide that when comparing an object in question to a paragon to measure their equivalence, it's like the Medieval Problem of Universals.

The Medieval Problem of Universals (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Within this philosophy, there are three general areas of Metaphysics.  The ‘realists’ have the belief that for every category, there is a template of sorts, known as ‘form’, that exists in nature and on which every member of that category is a variation. Theorists believe in an equivalent template but suggest that it exists in the mind and not in nature.  Whereas Nominalists have the notion that there is no template and that we basically categorise items based on their perceived similarity.  Periodically, these three theorems are classified differently, with extreme and moderate.  Realism is considered as two separate schools, while Conceptualism and Nominalism are massed together as ‘non-Realism’.  Although this isn’t critical, it does draw into what I want to discuss later, the subject of categorisation being a fundamentally political act.

It should be noted that I’m not attempting to justify and argue which of these is right or wrong, but rather to seek whether there is a template of some sort for how we define its characteristics.  In other words, what is the “default model” of a woman?  Ostensibly, if you claimed, “a woman is someone like me”, you are already starting to make all sorts of assumptions around what that default may look like.  Through projection, we realise that these assumed defaults (i.e. the unmarked) are often an embodiment of entitlement, and where they are not, they are manifestations of ancestral principles.

As before, this contains all sorts of anomalies, as I discussed earlier in the paragraphs above. Ostensive definition fosters dehumanisingly “surveillant, scrutinising and judging women for any deviation from the ideal model,  as a result of this, it is in the medium of the universal that restrictive expectations and oppressive stereotypes are born.

Operational Definitions

As the title denotes, these are concerned with the definition of units of measurement: for example, the definition of a kilometre, of an ampere or the definition of a width, etc.

At this point, you may muse and think that this has no relation to the discussion we are having – whatever a woman is, it's not a unit of distance or current or measurement; stay with me; it's attractive to the anti-trans activist as, unlike the stipulating definitions we discussed above, operational definitions are universal and consistent.  It's inconsequential what we are discussing, and no matter what the field, a kilometre is always a kilometre. Except it's not, is it? Whilst the definition of a unit of distance never changes (I accept the US and the UK being two countries divided by a common language is a consideration), how rigorous we must be is again a matter of context.

For example, if you travelled 35 kilometres in Australia (where I live), you may reasonably assume that it would be a similar distance measurement in say the US, where 35 kilometres is 21.74 miles (yes miles); a different measurement altogether.  The point I am making here is that a difference between a kilometre and a mile, whether that difference matters, is another question entirely

As flimsy as this analogy may be, I was attempting to demonstrate that while we can have an approximate kilometre and an approximate mile, to anti-trans activists, there is no such thing as an approximate woman.  Basically, one either is a woman or is not; we already know that anti-trans activists don’t believe in non-binary identities either, so in short, one is either a woman or a man.

Using this method, the anti-trans activists are, in a sense, demanding that a definition of a woman is a pre-emptive demand to concede the ideological assumption that the line between man and woman is sharp and final; that is a matter of oppositional otherness and not a matter of difference by degree.  That any element of gender that is not reducible to this binary and single-dimensional model is not deserving of consideration.  The TERFs retain so little interest in any discussion that the field is stacked in their favour before any discussion is started.

Categorisation is Intrinsically a Political Function

The German Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche argued that language misrepresents reality as it is grounded on what he suggests is a ‘metaphor’; Nietzsche implied that our theories are descriptions of “innumerable, similar cases – which means, strictly speaking, never equal – in other words, a lot of unequal cases.  Every concept originates through our equating what is unequal.”

Friedrich Nietzsche (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Nietzsche - Truth & Lies in a Nonmoral Sense (1873).pdf

Nietzsche's metaphors propose that they are designed to make communication easier; however, people forget that they are communication conveniences and erroneously consider them as truths.  What follows is an example: -

“If I make up the definition of a mammal, and then, after inspecting a camel, declare “look, a mammal,” I have indeed brought a truth to light in this way, but it is a truth of limited value. It is a thoroughly anthropomorphic truth which contains not a single point which would be “true in itself” or really and universally valid apart from man. At bottom, what the investigator of such truths is seeking is only the metamorphosis of the world into man. He strives to understand the world as something analogous to man, and at best he achieves by his struggles the feeling of assimilation.”

It's important to take from the above what every type of definition has in common: they are created for a purpose; that is, to suggest they discharge a necessity on the person creating that definition.  Importantly, it should be considered that this convention isn’t something factual; it's steered and briefed by the definer’s interests and values.

It's within everyone that our values are not just something where we distinguish between good and bad, but rather what we find important and unimportant.  In the process, when we create categories, we employ a set of criteria that we view as important.  Accordingly, there is no opportunity to create a category without making a valued opinion.  Should anyone suggest that their category is ‘objective’ is simply not telling the truth.  It’s a stated fact in philosophy that the criteria in themselves can be facts, albeit this is 100% true, but the preference of which criteria to use will always come down to a matter of values.

I wouldn’t be the first feminist in the world to delineate this, as Maya Goldenberg, narrating Elizabeth Spelman’s book “Inessential Woman”: stating “She brings attention to the fact that the act of categorising is the act of deciding what distinctions matter and is therefore itself a political act (as it reflects the interests and positions of the categoriser).”

Inessential Woman by Elizabeth V. Spelman | Open Library

The concept that categorisation is a political act, in fact, drives deeper than this explanation of “it's based on values”; exploring Speech Act Theory and probing its relationship with intentions, although trying not to labour the point too much.  I will leave this value-based explanation as it is, and the reference is there, should you wish to delve further into the subject.

There is also the irrefutable biology, something I covered in another paper recently.  We know that “Biological Facts” exist; however, its well documented and commented that trans people deny far fewer biological facts than the transphobes.  Probably of more substance, though, is that categories are not a matter of fact: moreover, their value is in their utility, not their factuality.

We know that biological categories do exist, that’s biology 101, not because they communicate something everlasting and unchanging universal truth, but rather and banally they are useful to biologists.  Viewed as the legendary ‘right’ tool for the right job.  Unpacking this analogy, what base is there here for presuming it’s the right tool for a different job?  I have heard it many times through the grapevine of the anti-trans movement: this is what they assert.

The biological common sense that if an individual has a penis or vagina is a case of biological fact.  It’s more a question of whether that fact is germane to the categorisation of people, which is a matter of values.  As a medical professional, to some extent, I accept the view that reproductive role is important to biologists, and more so, why it's important to domestic animal breeders.  To juxtapose society with these things is vigorously political and augments some troubling questions.

TERFs are continually declaring that it's important; however, they rarely, if ever, defend their assertions as they so want them to be true.  The truth is, they never make a good case for why those criteria are the best choice, other than that it gives them the answer they want. Any category excluding that transwomen aren’t women indicates that transwomen weren’t that important to the categoriser.  Returning to the TERFs example, it’s probably almost certainly excluding transwomen was important.

With all of this in mind, is it not reasonable, knowing that categories are a matter of values rather than facts, is it fair to suggest “are trans women, women?” When I analyse this myself, I would suggest it's poorly constructed.  The reason for my deduction here is that there is no way to prove it one way or another, as you can just define a woman in a manner that provides you with the answer that you want.  A much more plausible and, I think, a more constructive suggestion would be: “Should trans women be women?” Another tactic and common half-baked anti-trans analogy is when they suggest that calling a trans woman a woman is like calling a cat a dog.  I have commented much on this countering disanalogy is that, and I consider myself an educated scholar; a cat is in no way harmed by calling it a cat.  I think we are overflowing with clear evidence that affirming someone's gender leads to positive outcomes, and simply denying it will only lead to negative outcomes.  Suggesting that evidence isn’t important is a value judgement, as somehow or other the TERFs attempt to disguise that fact by making uneducated and uninformed claims about “biological reality.”

This talks volumes about the differences between trans people and TERFs.  In my own interactions with trans people, I have found them to be very candid about the value they hold that leads us to our theories of gender categories; it's well known and experienced that TERFs attempt to conceal the value they hold using scientific-sounding justifications to defend themselves from cross-examination and proclaim they are above any question.  Materially, who would you trust more: those who are open and candid about their values or those who attempt to camouflage them?

No Can’t; Won’t

With all this, at least the TERFs can define ‘woman’, correct?  It needs to be discussed now why trans people don’t have a definition that contends with the TERF's definition; there is an excellent reason for that.

I am very happy to call myself a woman (I am bisexual) and very proud of my gender and the choices I make for people to be with, also. For the most part, all the reasons I have discussed and stated above, however, I am not happy in any way to single-handedly extend that to other individuals.  I feel that, as an augmentation to this, one's identity must be decided externally, which is to deny subjectivity.  I feel it has the distinct air of anti-feminist objectification around it.

There is a ****** of thought that argues that a woman is anyone who calls themselves a woman, and addresses the point of subjectivity, although without wanting to gratify TERF rhetoric to any level.  The TERFs are extremely, ridiculously, self-contradictory and incorrect about why people would have any reason to lie; however, they are not incorrect that that could occur.  

The main standard reason in the last decade for people to lie about their gender is due to the transphobes wanting to be disruptive and discredit trans people; I think its plainly obvious here who they should be banning from public services.  There is a reluctance in me to confidently define ‘woman’ as I know that no matter how well-intentioned I am, any definition will inexorably integrate some people who shouldn’t be included and exclude some people who should be included; so vice versa.  My reasoning here is that, unlike the TERFs, I really do care about people (it's also my professional status) and wish no harm on anyone.  I choose not to respond to the question as a matter of my own values and principles, unlike the TERFs, who dismiss the idea to presume any position of authority over anyone's identities.  So, the command to ‘define woman’ becomes an unhinged demand: “If you don’t want to aggressively regulate the confines of people's identities, you are welcome to try it yourself?”

Therefore, those who derisively insist that they can “define woman” are manifesting the positively psychopathic belief that their place is more correct solely due to their willingness, whether inadvertently or more likely intentionally, to cause harm to others.  There was some indecision here for me to use the strong term ‘psychopathic’, but I am a professional person who knows from my own experience and work with these people that gender identity is a very personal thing.  To claim any entitlement or authority over that person's status, in the long run, to proclaim that their experience of their own life matters less than someone’s own assumptions and desires. It would be to suppose that another living, thinking, human being is in a position subordinate to oneself.  In essence its reasonable for me to suggest that it is to carry out vehemence against them psychologically for their own gratification.

So, Why Does it matter?

Categorisation is by its very nature a political act, and in relation to TERFs; its about power.  Vehemence against a powerless group is easy to substantiate but difficult to do.  However, violence aimed toward a powerless group that one can feign to be powerful is both easy to do and easy to justify; psychologists have studied these traits in many ways and their ‘scapegoat’ theory.

APA Dictionary of Psychology

The TERFs are insistent that transwomen are men, and it's no mere “statement of biology,” no matter how much they assert that.  It's a spurious statement about how powerful transwomen are based on a feminist axiom that men are powerful, where women are oppressed.  Many of the assertions they make toward transwomen do not follow from biology; they come from the male social position (despite their pretentiousness about dismissing the social), which transwomen categorically do not share.

The recent Supreme Court ruling, which was on employment law, has been misinterpreted by transphobes as an authorisation to fully oppress trans people; the basis of the decision is fundamentally incorrect.  The purpose of women-only employment positions is to counteract male dominance in employment; a survey by Sam Damshenas (2018) found that 1 in 3 employers are “less likely” to hire a transgender person, and 43% revealed that they’d be unsure.

1 in 3 UK employers are "less likely" to hire a transgender person.

Furthermore, the Human Rights Campaign in the US (the UK data is unavailable, the Government Equalities Office guidance explicitly advocates excluding trans people from mandatory pay equity reporting), An HRC Foundation analysis of nearly 7,000 full-time LGBTQ+ workers, median earnings were about $900 weekly, about 90% of the $1,001 median weekly wage a typical worker earns in the United States, as reported recently by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

HRC | The Wage Gap Among LGBTQ+ Workers in the United States

Usual Weekly Earnings of Wage and Salary Workers - Third Quarter 2025

This report suggests that transwomen do not participate in that male dominance, and it is nonsense for the law to profess that transwomen do.  It's also worth noting that trans men and non-binary people also do not participate in the male dominance.  The HRC numbers above all demonstrate that while they do earn more than transwomen (this raises increased challenges around the Supreme Court's strange assumption that the pay gap is down to ‘biology’), transwomen are the only people they earn more than, and they still earn substantially less than cis people of either gender.)

Despite the 2016 article discussing 160+ examples of male privilege, as it reads only a sprinkling apply directly to transwomen (and those coming under the portent of reproductive justice, in which they don’t share the oppressions as cisgender women but instead have our own different oppressions); the TERFs improperly intimate that transwomen enjoy the power that comes from being a man in a male-dominated world.

160+ Examples of Male Privilege in All Areas of Life - Everyday Feminism

Furthermore, this is reinforced by various complicit theories about “institutional capture”, taking as evidence of this whenever an organisation decides to acknowledge that transwomen exist and treat them like human beings (which is exactly how misogynists behave whenever someone remembers women exist, too).  With this, they growl at transwomen’s supporters that they are “handmaidens of the patriarchy”, even though a large part of the patriarchy’s concern is quite undeniably to attempt to block them from existing.

The result of this action is that they are erasing their oppression and ascribing to them power that they don’t have in a form on a large scale of something we call DARVO: “Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender”:

DARVO is a psychological strategy used by perpetrators of transgression, particularly prevalent in abusive relationships.  The acronym represents three main concepts:

Deny: The perpetrator denies any misconduct or harm caused. Some may refuse to recognise the abuse or minimise the victim’s feelings and their experiences.

Attack: The perpetrator, when confronted, attacks the accuser, often by questioning their credibility and character.  This may include verbal assaults or attempts to discredit the victim's claims.

Reverse Victim and Offender: Perpetrators then position themselves as the victim, claiming that they are the ones who are wronged.  This reversal can confuse the rightful victim and lead to self-doubt and guilt.

This turns transwomen who are the ones oppressed into oppressors and thereby justifies their sadistic, violent impulses.

Conclusion 

This paper has been a somewhat deep philosophical journey through the issues of defining what a “woman” is, even though the key people in governance and legal circles are making a mess of it, so adding credence to the transphobes and the TERF causes.  Thank you if you made it this far, sticking with a tricky and controversial subject, 

I want to leave you with one last thought-provoking thought, penned by Dr Martin Luther King in 1963, from another oppressed group that was categorised like trans people:

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." The quote of the day comes from his book Strength to Love”