Certainly, women have experienced oppression and so have men. Slavery was not gender, or even age specific. But I don't see any connection between oppression and female identity. Any group can be oppressed to any level and with no time limit, depending on their ability to fight back or have others fight in their name to provide them with more 'equality.'
You could just as easily connect female identity with female warriors of the past. Significant warrior women existed from the early Greek and Germanic tribes, the celts, the vikings etc to women today fighting on the front lines of war.
Plenty of powerful historical women as well, in all fields.
Why would women not choose to identify more with these historically powerful examples of female strength along with political resistance groups like the suffragettes etc. Why would they choose to identify with the oppressions foisted on them by others?

It is not massively complicated.

Trans women are trans women. Women are women. Referring to a trans woman as a woman is just a way of accepting someone as they wish to be seen.

In terms of close relationships, medical reasons and physically competitive sports trans women are trans women. Outside of those areas trans women are women.

It is just a case of common sense and politeness. Most people who see someone dressed as a woman will call them a woman. Maybe there are a few scarce situations where it is not clear but that can be overcome quite easily with a simple exchange.

. I'm very new to philosophy of language — Paulm12

There need be no necessary and sufficient conditions in place for us to be able to use a word; indeed, there rarely are. This is what is meant by the term family resemblance.

Stipulating a criteria, one way or the other, is a political act.

A woman is an adult female of the human species. Any man can try to look like one but the biology ultimately betrays the act.

Stipulating a criteria, one way or the other, is a political act. — Banno

A woman is an adult female of the human species. Any man can try to look like one but the biology ultimately betrays the act. — NOS4A2

Case in point.

It might be more interesting to get @Nickolasgaspar's opinion here. He has explained how we are caused to act for our own wellbeing, and that as a result all we need to do is measure wellbeing - in terms of brain chemistry, it seems - in order to work out what that wellbeing is, and so solve all the problems we previously considered to be questions of "ethics"

So here's an opportunity for Nick to explain the practicality of that theory. In my old-fashion ways, I might pose the moral question "ought we use the word "woman" for a man who has transitioned to a woman?" I'm sure @Isaac and @Tom Storm would be interested in hearing how it works in a practical situation.

Show us how your ideas will objectively set us on the straight path.

A poor argument.

You write that “Referring to a trans woman as a woman is just a way of accepting someone as they wish to be seen…it’s just a case of common sense and politeness” and I’m inclined to agree. Certainly one who goes out of their way to misgender someone says a lot more about them then the person they’re misgendering.

To me, where it gets more complicated, is when we start engaging with feminist literature and talk about epistemology, not how we behave in polite conversation. Take Simone de Bauvier, “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.” If one agrees that a crucial part of “being” a woman is being socialized as a woman, specifically at a young age, then (to me) one can reject the statement “trans women are women” simply because, in their view, trans women haven’t been through this crucial socialization process. Perhaps the person rejecting the statement would say “trans women are *partially* women” or “trans women are in the *process* of becoming women” or maybe even “trans women are missing a crucial part of what it means in my definition of woman but I will still call them a woman out of politeness.” This last statement in particular wouldn’t sit right with me, and I am interested in anything in response.

To be honest, I really struggle in my (hypothetical, I really haven’t talked to a lot of them) arguments against TURFs (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists).

We talk about “in terms of close relationships, medical reasons and physically competitive sports trans women are trans women. Outside of those areas trans women are women.” However, even in those categories the lines are being blurred, with some transwomen arguing that they are women and thus have a “right” to compete in physically competitive sports. I honestly don’t know where I stand on the issue.

I can only assume you don’t take part in physical sports? There is a significant advantage physically. It is that simple.

I can tell you exactly what would happen if trans women competed in physical sports. They would break all the women’s records and rank high. This is simply a fact.

Women’s sport dominated by trans women is not women’s sport. There is a reason men and women do not compete together in nearly every sport. The men are FAR stronger and have better stamina too.

In terms of medicine it is kind of important that someone let the doctors know they are trans rather than just saying they are a woman. I think this is pretty obvious? Complications could easily arise for certain diseases and such if the doctor is not made aware of their patients sex above their preferred gender specification.

There need be no necessary and sufficient conditions in place for us to be able to use a word; indeed, there rarely are. This is what is meant by the term family resemblance.

Stipulating a criteria, one way or the other, is a political act. — Banno

You're under Wittgenstein's spell! Is suggest you do something about it, pronto!

“One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.” If one agrees that a crucial part of “being” a woman is being socialized as a woman, specifically at a young age — Paulm12

I remember in my youth, having a chat/debate with a homosexual man who at one point exclaimed.
'I don't care about biology! I am not a man and I never have been.' It was said with such conviction that I became convinced that 'the gender part' of his consciousness identified as female and it was as simple as that. That was not going to change in his lifetime and I just had to accept that. It was not a case of 'being polite.' This person was telling me something that I either accepted or was willing to war with forever because he was UNABLE to be any other way.
I think if transwomen/men are willing to take it as far as medical intervention and surgery then it's a done deal. I think you ultimately make space for transpeople or kill them because they can't be other than who and what they are. I don't think previous 'socialisation as a woman,' is an issue. I think they always have.
As a youth, I would perhaps engage in what was considered 'male activities' while the person I had the chat with may have been engaging in more female activities. As he claimed, 'he was never male.'

There is a significant advantage physically. It is that simple. — I like sushi

In terms of medicine it is kind of important that someone let the doctors know they are trans rather than just saying they are a woman. I think this is pretty obvious? Complications could easily arise for certain diseases and such if the doctor is not made aware of their patients sex above their preferred gender specification. — I like sushi

This is one of the 'issues,' isn't it, and the idea of transwomen having access to female toilets etc.
Maybe there should only be one type of toilet facility with individual large enough cubicles. Perhaps the communal area could have security camera's to protect everyone using it.
Very difficult. I wonder if Science can find some acceptable solutions in the future to the sports issue.
Maybe safe 'steroid' type medication could be given to women who transform into men to gain the increased strength they need within a set range and men transforming into women could have their strength reduced to a set range. Perhaps they could then compete in sports fairly. I suppose I am just 'guessing,' now but humans are quite good at finding solutions........eventually.
Maybe a (probably more controversial) genetic-based solution is possible, in the future, if science ever identifies exactly what causes the 'disagreement,' between the physical gender and conscious gender of an individual and finds a way to correct any ambiguity before birth. I don't know enough about biology or neuroscience to know if such detection and intervention is possible or not.

Stipulating a criteria, one way or the other, is a political act. — Banno

Exactly. Should be all the answer needed here.

I find sports people have an unfair advantage over me because they take exercise and practice. Until such artificial stimulants are banned, I have no hope, no matter how many drugs and hormones I take.

In other words, do you think it is possible to create necessary and/or sufficient conditions for an idea like "woman" (and if so, what would those be)? — Paulm12

It's possible of course, yet your idea of a woman may not exactly coincide with another's. So it would be hard to craft a universal definition.

"Woman" is one half of a social division of labor which is now in crisis in high-income states given that woman can now be exploited in equal measure to men. The irony is that the crisis over how to define 'woman' comes exactly at the point when women can no longer be straight-forwardedly subordinated to men, but instead get to participate in the domination of capital, just like everyone else. This in turn has shifted more power from workers to capital, the latter of which has a vaster reserve of labor to exploit, which of course fosters resentment in men, who see their once dominant position in society wither up, as they get to be exploited even harder. The right-wing reaction, instead of directing itself towards capitalism, which makes things worse for everyone, instead reckons the problem is women in general, and appeals to reinforced standards of femininity while scapegoating transwomen and so on. The panic over women is a panic over capitalism in another form.

https://alyesque.medium.com/on-women-as-a-class-materialist-feminism-and-mass-struggle-42a228bde888

Toilets are irrelevant. Plenty of countries have unisex toilets so I see no issue with anyone using any toilet.

Currently men and women cannot be physically changed to match the physicality of those sexes. Perhaps in the future CRISPR will allow people to change completely. As scientific knowhow stands, the physical differences (in terms of strength) cannot be levelled.

If I could literally change into a female overnight I would definitely give it a try (as long as I could revert back to being male). Who wouldn’t out of sheer curiosity?

The panic over women is a panic over capitalism in another form — StreetlightX

I agree, except I'd add that the setting for this is the age of high tech warfare, so we aren't shuffling millions of men off to die in a trench somewhere.

Maybe this eased the way for women's rights in the 1920s when capital's domination of labor was worse.

so I see no issue with anyone using any toilet. — I like sushi

I have no issue with it either but many many people do have an issue with shared gender public toilets.
Especially women who fear male sexual preditors.

If I could literally change into a female overnight I would definitely give it a try (as long as I could revert back to being male). Who wouldn’t out of sheer curiosity? — I like sushi

I wonder if VR(Virtual Reality) or AR(Augmented Reality) will reach a stage where you can wear a 'sensory encounter suit,' and sit inside a machine and wear a 'helmet,' that can allow you to become a virtual woman at any time.

Woman

1. Genetically: XX (normal woman) or XXX... (superwoman)

2. Bodily: Breasts, vagina, other secondary sexual characteristics.

3. Mentally: ??? No data or conflicting reports.

In western society (where most people are bothered) there just aren’t that many ‘sexual predators’ to worry about. Plus, on the continent unisex is common enough already.

It mainly an issue for Americas, UK, Aussieland and NZ I expect.

Once CRISPR makes a little headway it will be possible to literally convert sexes. As for pregnancies … would need to do some wiggling around to produce eggs/sperm ‘artificially’ most likely. The whole procreation problem might not be so easy to overcome (at least for converting to female!).

In western society (where most people are bothered) there just aren’t that many ‘sexual predators’ to worry about. — I like sushi

Oh, I don't know about that, I think the number of male sexual predators are evenly spread globally but I don't have any stats to back up what I am claiming. Perhaps you do, to back up what you are claiming.
I know I have many male friends who will try to 'chat up' women whenever they can, especially with a drink in them. If they shared toilets, I think they would try to 'chat up' women in there as well and perhaps be 'cheeky,' if they get rejected out of hand. There are serious issues of concern involved I think.

CRISPR and its possible projected future replacements/advancements are indeed very interesting but I wonder if transwoman to man or transman to woman will be eventually moot, if the current projections of future transhumanism are realised.

3. Mentally: ??? No data or conflicting reports. — Agent Smith

I find this quite interesting. If I think of my own group of friends, male/female/married/single/various sexual preferences etc. The aspects of their 'personality,' that I personally would lablel 'male,' or 'female,' are myriad, subjective and probably idealistic. They are probably also strongly driven by my experience of and indoctrination in stereotypes. I have often heard comments such as 'I am in touch with my female side,' or 'The woman in me wants to hug him the man in me wants to beat him up,' etc.
Although many of us have clarity of gender, it's hard to deny that we have aspects of our opposite gender personality. Is it just the physical differences between men and women that drive the mental conflict?

There need be no necessary and sufficient conditions in place for us to be able to use a word; indeed, there rarely are. This is what is meant by the term family resemblance. — Banno

The only necessary condition for using a word is that you are referring to some state-of-affairs that is not necessarily just another use of words. If not, then you aren't actually using words. You're just drawing scribbles and making noises. But it nice to see you finally admit that when you use words, you aren't actually ever saying anything, Banno.

Stipulating a criteria, one way or the other, is a political act. — Banno

No. Categorization is an act of reason. Finding common ground with others' categorization is an act of communication. But it is nice to see you finally admit that you see everything through the prism of politics, Banno.

A woman is an adult female of the human species. — NOS4A2

Yes, just as a doe is an adult female of the deer species. Nothing political to see here.

It is just a case of common sense and politeness. Most people who see someone dressed as a woman will call them a woman. Maybe there are a few scarce situations where it is not clear but that can be overcome quite easily with a simple exchange. — I like sushi

The problem is that in acknowledging someone's definition of "man" or "woman" that contradicts my own, would be discrediting my own identity as a man. Why should I relegate my own notions of what it means to be a man for the sake of not offending someone that is only happy when dictating what others can think or what words that they can use?

It is sexist to say that someone dresses like a woman - as if women can only dress a certain way. Trans people are no different in being sexist when they claim that being a man or a woman is dressing a certain way, nor are they non-binary when they still assert that they are a man or a woman. If they were really non-binary then they would be neither a man or a woman. As such, they should have their own category in sports and not participate in the binary categories of men and women's sports.

Yes, just as a doe is an adult female of the deer species. Nothing political to see here.

His was a strange criticism and a political act at the same time. It’s no wonder truth suffers around issues such as these.

There have been no reports of a feminine interpretation of texts nor of womanly solutions to problems. This could, of course, be a personal shortcoming rather than a fact - I'm not that bright. Maybe we should ask the fairer sex to comment on this matter.

It has nothing to do with your ‘definition’. No one calls me ‘man’ they refer to me by name or with he/him. If someone prefers to be called he/him and dresses like a man I’m down with that.

If a guy is wearing make up and a dress, and appears to be conveying the general outward aspect of ‘woman’ I would refer to them as she/her because that is CLEARLY what they are conveying. I know they are NOT a WOMAN because I can see they are a TRANS WOMAN but I need not be a dick about it and refer to them as he/him.

Politeness in this circumstance has nothing to do with some weird inner dictionary definition of ‘woman’. Undoubtedly, as mentioned, it is possible I am unsure about whether someone perceives/conveys themselves as x or y, in which case I would just probably ask if necessary and suffer the consequences of potentially offending them (they would be rare cases).

Maybe being exposed to trans women more often than many in the western world has coloured my view? I have no idea? It just seems pretty obvious to me how to behave in a reasonable manner to people who are different to me in terms of how they perceive their own identity. God knows we all have some kind of identity crisis at some stage in our lives, that is just the way things are.

I’m not crossing over into sexism here. The same basic rules apply.

To what extent are you down with sacrificing truth to protect someone’s feelings? I might convey in manner and dress that I am a king, but would you refer to me as “lord” and treat me as such in case you might offend my delusion?