originally published on 21/05/2022

DISCLAIMER: I just stumbled upon this topic. I did not want to talk about it, nor did I want to see more of it, but Social Media deemed it appropriate to barrage me with it. That left a foul taste in my mouth. So foul, in fact, that I decided that I ought to take matters into my own hands.

DISCLAIMER 2: Electric boogaloo: I am not a political scientist. Then again, no one dealing with politics on a professional level is, so I have as much right to talk about things that end up being topics of political discussion as anyone else.

DISCLAIMER 3: This does not endorse either side of the political circus in the USA. I despise modern politics, though I adore the concept of politics, and as a result, this is not going to be arguing in favor of anybody. It is, in fact, a simple thought experiment, performed by an idiot.

What is a woman?

Asking this question brings up a number of other questions. We will not be answering those other questions. Instead, we will focus on simply defining that thing, that concept: ‘the woman’

First, we need to establish what it is that we are looking for. A definition, naturally! But that definition needs to meet a certain criteria - it needs to be applicable for half of the human population. For the purposes of this thought experiment, we will:

1. Pretend that there are an even number of human beings on the planet Earth, and exactly half of them are one type of human being, while the other half are the second type of human being;
2. Pretend anyone else does not exist - sorry, N-bees, you’re not real.

Second, we need to keep in mind the reality of the situation. Simply put, there are many answers that can be given to the question: ‘What is a woman?’

What kind of answer we will get depends on where we look for it. As a result of that, I will take a gander at three possible avenues for retrieving an answer to this question. Over the course of this bout of mental acrobatics, I will come to a conclusion.

Wordy Definition

The first place we will rummage through in search of a definition for ‘the woman’ is going to be a dictionary. All I’m planning on doing is asking Google for an answer, which yields results, as the Search Engine Monopoly Holder is incredibly enthusiastic about answering. So, Google says: “an adult female human being”

Apparently, that is the woman. Immediately upon receiving this answer, though, I found myself a bit confused. Questions started swirling around my head, such as:

“What is a female?”; “Are female human beings, who have not yet become adults, not women?”; “Are dead human beings considered adults, and if they are, are the dead female human beings considered women?”

Let’s see… Well, according to the definition provided by Google, if you want to be a ‘woman’ you need to be an adult being, a female being, as well as a human being.

We’re going to start with the point of adulthood. I, personally, do not mind the idea of not referring to female human beings who have not reached sexual maturity as ‘women’. However, seeing as they are not going to fit the bill as ‘men’, I realize we might have found a problem.

The dictionary definition of the word ‘woman’ does not meet the criteria we set out for it, due to the fact that it does not apply for half of the human population.There turns out to be a part of the human population that does not fit under the term ‘woman’ - that would be children - which, in turn, indicates that there is something specific about ‘the woman’.

Due to the fact that one is not born a ‘woman’ - as evidenced by the definition’s use of the word ‘adult’, it becomes clear that the process or act of embodying the concept of ‘the woman’ has a beginning. A female human being becomes a ‘woman’ at a certain point in their life. Now, let’s go on to the next question - what is a ‘female’? The answer to that query will allow us to discern whether a dead human female remains a woman, or if it stops being a woman.

Asking the entity that calls itself Google another question yields the answer: “of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes which can be fertilized by male gametes.”

Thus, we now know what a female is. However, it is important to note that the term ‘female’ applies to every single creature. It is not exclusively human. There are going to be a few more things we’ll need to talk about, pertaining to the term ‘female’, but we have gathered what information we needed to answer that other question.

So, a female is, very clearly, a creature that can bear offspring or produce eggs. Unfortunately for the dead female human being, all biological processes have ceased, which means that there is no egg production, nor is there any offspring bearing. That leads me to believe that, due to the fact that being dead negates the aspect of being ‘female’, as defined by the dictionary, the requirement for being a woman is not met.

Thus, dead female human beings are not women, either. But we can dig a little deeper, as those fellows - the dead ones - aren’t really human, either. They’re just dead. However, if we’re judging by the words used in that definition - mainly the word ‘can’ - we get a hint.

It appears as though the ABILITY to bear offspring or produce eggs is what defines a being as female. Unfortunately for the female human beings, that ability is not eternal. Enter menopause, which comes at a certain point in the life of an adult female human being, and does a very important thing. It makes it so that the particular female human being, affected by menopause, no longer produces eggs. As a result of that, that female human being can no longer bear offspring - not through natural means.

Thus, it seems as though female human beings over a certain age - let’s say 50, which is when menopause is fabled to set in - happen to have the aspect of being ‘female’ negated by their inability to meet the criteria required to be female, those being to bear offspring and produce eggs.

Suddenly, it is not just children that do not fit under the term of ‘woman’, but also female human beings who are over a certain age. That indicates that being a woman is a temporary thing, as it has a beginning, the point at which adulthood is reached, and an end, the point at which menopause sets in.

This suggests to me that being a ‘woman’ is a state of being, similar to status, rather than an irrevocable certainty, an irreversible, predetermined, pre-set part of one’s being. That might be a bit avantgarde, though, so let’s pull back a bit, and find another droplet of proof that the dictionary’s definition of the word ‘woman’ is not appropriate.

There are female human beings who simply can not have children. They might be of the perfect age for having children, yet they still are unable to bear offspring or produce eggs. Maybe they do produce eggs, but there’s something that prevents them from bearing offspring, or maybe they are capable of bearing offspring, but they can not produce eggs - it does not matter. For the purposes of this thought experiment, nature has deemed these human beings unfit to be ‘women’.

After all, by definition, the only thing that makes a ‘woman’ a ‘woman’ is her state as an adult female human. When either of those is untrue, that entity is not a ‘woman’. The fact that a female is exclusively defined by her ability to bear offspring or produce eggs means that any being that can not do either of those things does not fall under the definition for ‘female’, and, as a result, does not fall under the definition for ‘woman’.

That is exceedingly cruel, is it not? It shows us two things, though. First, that the dictionary’s answer to the question: ‘What is a woman?’ does not meet our criteria. Second, it shows us that basing a definition of a human being upon something that nature has decided for us is cruel and, perhaps, inappropriate.

Thus, we can look for another approach… But that will come later, after we gather some more definitions. For now, I suppose we could look far back, to a collection of great wisdom, and ask there…

Biblical Definition

Ah, yes, the Bible. That book has served as a means of explaining the world for almost two thousand years. That makes me think that it will contain some incredible knowledge through which we will be able to define ‘the woman’ in a manner that meets the criteria we agreed upon. I want to be thorough and respectful, so I’ll go at it from the very beginning. That is where we are introduced to the concept, after all.

We start off with Genesis 1. Giving it a read brings about a single little set of information. 1:27 yields one tidbit of relevant knowledge: Male and female… Well, those divide humanity in two. For the moment, it seems to meet the criteria, but there has been no mention of the word ‘woman’, nor has there been a definition that differentiates it from that of ‘human’. Is there a tiny supposition, rooted in the text itself, that I am meant to know what male and female refer to? If so, my knowledge of those terms would extend to what the dictionary might provide me with.

As we have come to know from the Wordy Definition, that would make it so the criteria is not met. So, for the moment, I will feign ignorance and continue, as there is something I find quite interesting. There is no mention of any difference between the male and female. That implies they are one and the same, perfectly equal, totally even… Well, safe for whatever the ‘fe’ before ‘male’ denotes, but I’m certain it will not be a problematic addition!

Then, we come to Genesis 2. Fortunately, that gives us a definition. 2:23 straight up tells us that the woman is such, because she was taken out of man. That is interesting, as the way the woman is created - out of a rib, a piece, a part of the man - seems to imply that she is, somewhat, lesser than him, or subservient to him. Though, on the other hand, knowing that man is made of the dust of the ground implies that she is made of the exact same substance as him, making her totally equal to him… Totally, safe for the fact that he has a name, given him by God, and she has no name… Or maybe she does?

Are Adam’s words ones that name her? He says that she shall be called ‘woman’. Perhaps that is her name now? So is ‘woman’ a name, then, borne by those who have been taken out of man? That would imply that Dionysus and Athena are both women, as they were taken out of Zeus, a man, would it not? Or does it signify that she is an object, not granted a name with the nature of that of Adam, but a name with the nature of those given to the wights named by him? Maybe there is more to be uncovered, though. For the moment, however, it seems a bit convoluted.

There is one more thing. 2:25 refers to ‘the woman’ as Adam’s ‘wife’. In 2:24, through the act of unitining himself to his wife, a man becomes one flesh with her. That might be referring to the act of coitus, which, then, might throw us a bone confirming that the ‘male’ and ‘female’ mentioned in 1:27 are referring to this biological definition based on reproductive capabilities. That would be disappointing, as we have established the fallacy of using ‘female’ as a means of defining ‘woman’.

I’ll give it one more chance. On to Genesis 3, where we are informed of the fact that the two, the male and female, are, indeed, those pertaining to reproduction. However, we also get something else. Something very interesting. 3:16 through 3:19 is where the Bible gets a little funky. See, God is dishing out curses, as he does in the Old Testament, but he also does something interesting. He seems to assign roles…

The woman will be giving birth to children and be ruled over by her husband, while Adam, the man, will toil away for food.

This seems to provide us with a definition for what a woman is. A woman - that’s the human being, known as the wife, ruled over by the toiling human being, known as the husband.

We can not use the words ‘female’ or ‘male’ as means of describing or defining either ‘woman’ or ‘man’, as I have explained in the Wordy Definition. It is unfortunate that these terms cannot be used as crutches to help us on this quest to find out what a woman is, but we need to be vigilant in our search for that which meets the criteria we set out!

Fortunately enough, we have a definition, though it is bound to the words ‘husband’ and ‘wife’. That urges me to ask a few more questions, such as: “If a human being is not a ‘husband’ or a ‘wife’, then can that human being be a ‘man’ or a ‘woman’?”; “If a ‘husband’s ‘wife’ ceases to be, does the ‘husband’ remain a ‘husband’?”; “If a ‘wife’s ‘husband’ ceases to be, does the ‘wife’ remain a ‘wife’?”; “Is there a requirement for a human being to meet before becoming a ‘husband’ or a ‘wife’?”

The answers to those questions are important. Due to the importance of this relationship’s dynamic - after all, we have one entity ruling over another - it seems to me that being a ‘wife’ or a ‘husband’ is the way to define oneself as either a ‘man’ or a ‘woman’. The one who toils and rules over the other is the ‘man’, the ‘husband’, and the one who is ruled over by the other is the ‘woman’, the ‘wife’.

That’s a very unpleasant definition, though. It seems incredibly erroneous to the very concept of humanity. After all, is humanity not possessive of free will? How come half of humanity is bound to be ruled over by someone else, to give up their free will, in exchange for definition?

Then there’s also the answer to the other questions. We know that, to become a ‘husband’ or ‘wife’, one must be an adult. One must reach sexual maturity. Thus, we start encountering the same issue as with our Wordy Definition.

The rest of what is said in 3:16 simply confirms that the majority of what being a ‘woman’ is is bound to reproduction. With that, I think I have drawn enough wisdom from the Bible. The definition it provides for ‘woman’ does not meet our criteria.

Though, if you will allow me a tiny tangent - we ought to not care much for what the Bible says, as it is evident that those who feign worry over the respect afforded to the lessons therein usually exhibit an aversion to following them. Alas, if said lessons were truly taken to heart, we would not be having this discussion.

Social Definition

There’s the thing that we’ve all dreaded… Right? Well, even if you folks are not fans of the idea of bringing up anything relating to the social aspect of the human being, and that same aspect of the concept of ‘the woman’, it can not be understated that it is present. Not only that, but it has been hinted at by both of the definitions we have taken a look at.

The Wordy definition hinted at the fact that a ‘woman’ is something transient, something that has a beginning and an end, which beginning and end do not match the birth and death of the human being in question.

The Biblical definition informed us that the ‘woman’ is a role that is either taken up by a human being, or it is bestowed upon said human being.

Slap these two together and you get one of the many problems of our current society.

However, there is something that needs to be addressed, first. Being a woman has, so far, been defined exclusively through the reproductive functions of the body. It seems to me that the definitions that we have been utilizing so far are bound, exclusively, to that - the ‘female’.

In the language used by us, today, the terms ‘female’ and ‘woman’ have become incredibly synonymous. In fact, they are very similar in meaning, as one defines the other. However, judging by what we have discovered in this thought experiment, the ‘female’ is not equal to the ‘woman’. Thus, maybe there is a need to look in another direction - to look towards the definition provided and decree that it is not right.

Let’s deepen the experiment. Let us say that a female is that which has the appropriate organs. Does that, then, manage to meet our criteria? Well, for the purposes of defining the ‘female’ - it does. For the purposes of defining the ‘woman’, it does not seem to truly do so.

Why, though? The answer is quite simple, for it is rooted within the definition for ‘woman’. We’ve taken an extensive look at two of those parts, now let’s turn towards the third. Human. That is, arguably, the most important aspect of being a ‘woman’, as it also makes up 60% of the word itself.

Then, we have a conundrum. What we have, so far, been wriggling around and trying to figure out, turns out to have been something almost totally disconnected from being human. We’ve been looking at this concept, the ‘woman’, through the lens of analyzing a thing that is predetermined. Analyzing a thing that is pre-set, something that is found within an incredibly rigid system. That is totally applicable… For animals.

Here’s the thing - humans are not animals. Though, if we do make the concession that they are animals, they are unlike any other animal. They are so unique that they occupy an entirely different level in whatever hierarchy that is in effect for all other animals. Humans exist, seemingly, on the very precipice of that hierarchy - almost outside of it, yet somehow only half within it.

That is owed up to our great quality to overcome our nature, which comes from our ability to think rationally and apply reason. That, in turn, is owed up to our ability to wield abstractions. So, what is this abstraction that I speak of? Let us take a human and an animal. Let us compare them by situating them before a metaphorical mirror. For the animal being empty. For the human, the mirror would be a mirror.

Why is it going to be so? Well, because the human can abstract itself, can remove itself mentally, from its surroundings. The animal cannot. Through the act of abstracting itself from its surroundings, the human transcends nature and the world itself, and goes on to engage in some pseudo-world creation, as it constructs this previously mentioned mirror. That mirror is the ‘concept’ of something - or everything - and it is crafted by that human through its knowledge, through its rational thought and its reason.

That is the image. That image is the most important difference between a human and an animal. The animal does not possess that image, that concept, which means it is bound by its surroundings and its nature. The human being, however, wielding that abstraction, can consider it, can utilize its reason and rationale to expand said concept, or image. Through that conceptualization of things, the human being has grown capable of knowing itself.

It has become self-aware. Through this awareness of the self, the human being begins the process of defining itself. The process of definition is simple - it is the act of putting an end to something, of discerning where one thing ends and another begins. The borders of a thing, its confines, that is what construes its being. That is what a definition is.

Then, that definition of the self is redirected to other things, and those things start to be defined. Every human being defines itself and everything it encounters. However, every human being defines things differently - in its own unique manner. That, in turn, brings about the problem we are currently struggling with.

The definitions we have been looking at have been ones that are set by someone else, not by ourselves. Now, let me refer to the question asked of the ‘democratically’ nominated Supreme Court Nominee: “Can you provide a definition for the word woman?”

The answer given was: “No.”

The reasons as to why that kind of answer was given ought to be obvious, for this is a very politically charged question. Any answer that was not liked by the inquirer was going to yield the same reaction, while any answer that was liked by the inquirer was going to yield the same reaction from the other side. Any answer that feigned knowledge, in this context, was going to be inappropriate to provide. A judge who knows things is biased, and, thus, their judgment is not going to be just.

So the answer was a negative one. No, a definition for the word can not be provided. Was that a good answer? Was it the right answer? Of course not, because every single human being, as mentioned, has their own definition of the word ‘woman’, which definition is unique to them. The definition provided by one individual would be different from the definition provided by another. Even if on a surface level the definitions match, the deeper one goes in their definition of the word, the more different it will turn out to be when compared to what the other individual might have as a definition.

That means there’s a problem, though that was mentioned earlier. The secular contract that had been in power up until this problem arose is no longer in power. Without that secular contract, which entails the requirement that every member of society makes concessions of their own definition of a word and accepts to wield a certain definition, no common definition of a word can be had.

Two sides have appeared, with each side presenting its own arguments. However, unlike human beings, who are rational, capable of wielding reason, of abstracting themselves and of overcoming their nature, it appears as though both sides have begun a process of abstraction… From their humanity.

How are problems solved by animals? Through the application of violence. How is the solution of this problem, of defining the word ‘woman’, being sought? Through the application of violence. You’re smart, you know that violence comes in many forms.

As unfortunate as it is, humanity is not trying to solve this issue in a human manner. Through an abstraction, through reason and rationale, through overcoming our nature - that is how we will truly reach a consensus. That is how we will truly come to the point of signing a new secular contract on the definition of the word ‘woman’.

But how do we do that? I don’t know, but I’d suggest we expand our conceptions of things. That is easily done through the accumulation of knowledge. Getting to know things involves understanding them, with the best way of doing that being the perusal of books. I suggest we engage in the reading of:

The “Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences” and the “Phenomenology of Spirit”, by Hegel, as well as the “Critique of Pure Reason”, the “Critique of Practical Reason” and the “Critique of Judgment”, by Kant.

Now, I know those authors are very painful to read, for I’ve read them. However, reading these works is important, as they focus on expanding just that - our understanding of what makes us human. When you read them, and when you’ve gleaned an understanding of what is being discussed within them, your horizons ought to have been expanded, which, in turn, ought to make it easier to act as a human being.

Don’t stop after the third critique, though. Read more books, but don’t confine yourself to just fiction. Read literature with a philosophical nature, read more books on sociology, and, screw it, read some ‘gender studies’, too! If what’s written within is bull, it’s no biggie. At least you will better understand where other people are coming from whenever they present their arguments, right?

Lastly, I’ve qualified myself as an idiot, so don’t take my word for it. There’s this one guy, famous for chugging poison and telling people to get jacked before they die while remaining a bit tubby himself. Sock-rates, right? Doesn’t matter, but Plate-O wrote that he said: “All I know is that I know nothing.”

So… How can anyone know what a woman is?