Gender Identity Theory and the 3 Definitions of Woman

Do you ever get the feeling that different people mean different things when they use the same word in our society’s current debate about sex and gender?

You aren’t alone, and you’re not crazy. You get this feeling because people are indeed using fundamental terms in very different ways. Specifically, Gender Identity Theory (“GID Theory”) has taken the word “woman” (and similarly, “man”) and redefined it to suit its ideological purposes. The confused meaning of this central term has thrown our societal debate about gender into chaos.

We need to crisply articulate the meaning of our terms to bring the gender debate back to order.

I have developed a framework arguing that there are currently three definitions of “woman” floating around, which I will refer to as 1) the liberal definition, 2) the conservative definition, and 3) the GID Theory definition. I’m going to explain each one, and then show how GID Theory definition is actually a bait and switch that acts as a regressive force in our conception of women and men.

Definition 1: A woman is a person who is an adult female

Definition 1 is the “liberal” definition of woman. It refers exclusively to the objective biological factors of sex and maturity.

One might argue that this definition kicks the can down the road by using the sex category of female in its definition, prompting the question of what a female is. But sex categories are easily defined in their own right by what gametes (eggs or sperm) a person produces. A female is the sex that produces eggs. A woman is simply the adult subset of that category.

Definition 1 is properly seen as the “liberal” definition of woman because of the openness and potential with which it approaches being a woman (and, on the other end, a man), without losing the objective nature of the definition. Definition 1 defines womanhood only by biology, meaning the social aspect of it can vary between individuals. Under Definition 1, women can like very masculine things. Women can be UFC champions, they can dislike babies, and they can prefer things to people. It doesn’t matter, because under Definition 1 there are a lot of different ways to be a woman, and a lot of different ways to be a man.

Where does the social descriptor of femininity fit into Definition 1? Despite there not being a necessary connection between womanhood and femininity in Definition 1, this does not mean that there won’t be a correlation. Definition 1 creates an objective category of “woman” without denying the trends that are observable in that category, such as personality trait differences between men and women, differences in interest, etc. Essentially, adherents to Definition 1 would say that the gender stereotypes of femininity are descriptive of women, but not prescriptive. And importantly, the reason for this connection is always up for debate in a liberal framework. Women are likely to have certain characteristics, but it does not mean that they must have them. Definition 1 allows flexibility for individuals without denying the observable trends of gender.

Definition 2: A woman is a person who is feminine

Definition 2 could be called the “conservative” definition or, more pejoratively, the “old-fashioned” definition. In Definition 2, there is a prescriptive link between womanhood and femininity. According to Definition 2, the defining part of being a woman is embodying feminine traits like being nurturing, agreeable, or perhaps having a feminine outward appearance by wearing feminine clothes as determined by the culture one is in.

Definition 2 is clearly contrary to the liberal definition. Pejoratively, Definition 2 is that meme of your old conservative uncle, the one who goes to his niece and says, “You’re joining the wrestling team? Why don’t you join the ballet class instead like a normal girl?” A person steadily loses their claim to womanhood and manhood to the extent that they fail to live up to the stereotypes of femininity and masculinity, respectively.

Under Definition 2, there aren’t a lot of ways to be a man or a woman. There is one ideal of masculinity, and one of femininity.

This creates an obvious problem: nobody fits either of these ideals. When you think of masculinity and femininity, you’re really thinking of two long lists, with each list containing a set of traits. Under masculinity, you would find assertiveness, stoicism, interest in things rather than people, physical strength, etc. Under femininity, you would find things such as compassionate nature, liking babies, higher levels of anxiety and emotion, etc.

Most of us would go down these two lists and check a bunch of boxes. Most of those boxes would be on one side, because that’s the nature of how biological sex influences who we are, but all of us would have some boxes checked on the list that is not typically associated with our sex. All women are masculine in some ways, and all men are feminine in some ways.

The obvious problem this creates is what we should do when we don’t fit the prescriptive link set up for us by Definition 2. Do I count as a man or a woman when I don’t fit the prescriptive ideal? How much wiggle room is there for me to remain in that box? This problem will become important later when we discuss Definition 3.

Definition 3: A woman is a woman.

Definition 3 is the GID Theory definition, and it has a number of variations, including:

• A woman is someone who identifies as a woman
• A woman is someone who is treated as a woman
• A woman is someone who is accepted as a woman by their peer group or society

The variations might look different, but they’re all the same definition because they have the same critical feature: they all use the word “woman” when defining “woman.” That feature should stand out as a problem to anyone who has opened a dictionary.

You cannot use a word to define itself, and it’s important to think about why you can’t do this. A definition is meant to add information. When somebody doesn’t understand what a word means, they need to have more words that they do understand to then understand the original word. If you use the same word in the definition, you leave a black hole in the middle of your definition, returning your reader or listener to the confusion and uncertainty they originally had when they heard the word.

It’s best to give an example with a new word to show how this doesn’t work. Imagine that I told you, “I’m a zarf.” You, being an open-minded person, would say, “That’s interesting, I haven’t heard of that. What’s a zarf?” If I responded, “A zarf is someone who identifies as a zarf,” you would be no closer to understanding what a zarf is. A zarf could be a person who collects baseball cards. A zarf could be a person with blue eyes, or someone who really hates Canadian people. You have no way to know.

One might argue that my definition of zarf does still add some information because we know it’s something that someone identifies as. But this hasn’t actually shed any light on the word “zarf;” you’re just getting information from the words you already recognize. You already recognize the word “someone” and “identifies,” and so you can piece together some of the meaning from the sentence, “A zarf is someone who identifies as a zarf.” But none of the meaning you have gleaned–absolutely zero–is coming from the word “zarf.” It’s coming exclusively from the words you already recognize. The word “zarf” remains a black box in the middle of the sentence into which you can put any meaning you want.

The same can be said with the word “woman.” When people use Definition 3 above, you could assign literally any traits to the word “woman” and have it fit the definition. A woman could be someone who loves children, sure, or it could be a person who builds furniture, or likes neutral colors in her home, or who has been to Mexico.

In other words, Definition 3 is a non-definition.

The bait and switch of GID Theory

As a non-definition, Definition 3 passes on no information at all. But here’s the mystery: when people get served with Definition 3 in real life, they don’t seem to walk away with the impression that it’s an empty definition. That’s because there’s a rhetorical trick happening here that nobody notices, and this trick is what is throwing our gender debate into confusion all across our society. The trick is a bait and switch, and this is how the magic trick is done.

The key to the trick is that the word “woman” is different than the word “zarf.” Women have been around for a long time, and the word carries along with it preconceived ideas and associations of what a woman is. We don’t have that with the word “zarf,” because I made that word up while writing this essay. So when I serve you an empty definition of the word “zarf,” you immediately realize it’s empty and you have no idea what’s going on.

But something completely different happens when we plug the word “woman” into an empty definition. Into the black hole that the definition leaves, the listener pours all of his/her preconceived ideas and associations of the word woman. The listener is inclined to say, “A woman is someone who identifies as a woman? Ah, this makes sense! I know lots of women and they have some broad similiarities. A woman is someone who identifies as being caring, and compassionate, and they identify as presenting in a feminine manner.”

But now you should see what has been done–the listener has just plugged in societal stereotypes of femininity to stand in for the undefined word of woman. In other words, the listener has adopted Definition 2!

The trick, therefore, is a bait and switch. GID Theory baits you with the most open-minded sounding definition of woman. “You just have to identify as a woman, and you’ll be a woman!” And they say that without explicitly saying what “woman” actually means. Contrary to being progressive and open-minded, GID Theory only ends up importing the old-fashioned gender stereotypes of your conservative uncle.

Everyone who watches the adherents of GID Theory knows this to be true. A famous example is the former Broadway star Dylan Mulvaney, who recently transitioned publicly to identifying as a woman. Mulvaney published a series of videos about Mulvaney’s first days of being a woman. In it, one sees gross caricatures and excessive stereotypes of femininity. What defined day one of being a girl/woman for Mulvaney? It included:

• Crying three times
• Writing a scathing email and then not sending it
• Ordering dresses online that were unaffordable
• Stating “I’m fine” when asked how Mulvaney was doing (but not actually feeling that way)

This is interesting, because Mulvaney could not simply adopt these feminine personality traits but continue to identify as a man. The reason Mulvaney can’t do this is because GID Theory has a prescriptive link between womanhood and femininity. It’s because GID Theory is really Definition 2.

When we understand that Definition 3 is really just Definition 2, the emergence of transgender and non-binary identity makes sense. Think back to the image I created earlier about masculinity and femininity being two long lists of traits, and that everybody, without exception, is a mix of these two lists.

Under Definition 2 (and by extension, Definition 3), you need to figure out which list you “identify” with most. A woman who doesn’t fit the stereotypes of femininity might find that she checks off more items on the “masculinity” list. Due to the prescriptive link between womanhood and femininity under Definition 2, she then realizes she needs to change from being a woman to being a man to “match” the two. The word “match” is important, because it reaffirms the prescriptive link.

Alternatively, maybe you don’t meet enough things on the list to hit that threshold of “identification” with the list. That’s probably a lot of us; most of us would say we don’t completely fit either of these lists. We aren’t Clint Eastwood or Arnold Schwarzeneggar, but we’re also not an unbelievably compassionate housewife with endless patience for her 4 kids. As a result of not wanting to box ourselves in, we choose neither list, or both, and call ourselves non-binary.

But what if someone truly believes in Definition 3 without the bait and switch?

Someone might object to the above and ask what would happen if a GID theory adherent genuinely believed that all that was required was self-identification. No tricks, no bait and switch. As long as you’re genuine about wanting that label of woman, you could be Clint Eastwood and still be a woman as long as you sincerely ask for the label. What then?

In the hit TV show The Office, there’s an episode where Jim Halpert is trying to impress his new vice president visiting his branch. The VP’s name is Charles Minor, and the first impression is going terribly. Jim, trying to make amends in a sincere way, tells Charles, “I’m a pretty smart guy, and a hard worker, and I’m a great number two for the office.” Charles immediately cuts him off and asks what a “number two” is. Jim informs him that it means he’s second in command to Michael, the regional manager. Charles then asks him, “Do any extra responsibilities come with it?” Jim replies in the negative. Charles then asks, “So, you want to keep this made up position?” There was nothing that actually defined being the “number two.”

So what happens if someone truly believes in Definition 3 with no added requirements? If so, then you’re putting a label on yourself with no defining quality at all. The point of a word or a label is to transmit information to other people. But when you say you’re a woman under genuine Definition 3, you’re transmitting no information at all. You could be saying you’re a serial killer, or that you collect baseball cards. A woman could be any person who has blue eyes.

In other words, a woman is no different than a zarf. A woman is nothing at all.

The question you should ask is this: do you want to keep this made up position?