Biological "sex" is not simple, and psychological "gender" is even more messy, more ambiguous, more fluid and up for debate. One influences the other as they interact and play upon attraction and orientation. They result from past karma but are influenced by present karma. Biology is not destiny, but its effects are so profound as to make it seem so. Add something to the water (like xenoestrogenic compounds) and no one should be surprised that feelings stop matching with expectations and biases. The fluid becomes more fluid. But there is still male and female not only at the level of the cell but at the level of particles ("atoms") according to Buddhist physics Consider the freakshow called House.
 |
| Sex, gender, and orientation |
Wisdom Quarterly is working on a "simple" answer to define "woman." It is more fundamental than biology's chromosomes because sex is set somewhere more deeply than molecules in the human body yet still within the physical. There are, of course, psychological components. However, these are fluid and flexible, changing and socially constructed. They are no basis for making a distinction between males and females. If a distinction is to be made, might we found it on something more stable and unchanging than ambiguous factors? Might its foundation be set at birth (conception) rather than post-partum? Looking at Buddhist physics (yes, there is such a thing in the Abhidhamma), we think the answer is yes. This will not settle the social upheaval now in motion because, whatever a "woman" is, what "womanhood" or "femininity" mean is left to human construction. For example, are women "naturally" (innately, by nature) killers or nurturers? While the answer may seem obvious, it is actually open to interpretation because, when a momma bear is protecting its cubs, it becomes a killing machine to any threat it perceives. Does that killing make it less female? (See "The Female of the Species"). When a man stereotypically goes off to work every morning in a previous version of Western society, is it less nurturing than a female staying at home to do that direct care? Is he less of a male for providing support? Psychology and physiology, mind and body, function and form, use and equipment, ideas and tools, humans are very adaptable. We interpret, we define, we make labels, and we do it based on something. Is it mutable? It is. No, but it can be based on an absolute or largely unchanging consideration. What could that be? That will be revealed in the next installment of this debate.
Scientists claim there is not a ‘simple' answer to define ‘woman'
 |
| Will this become the int'l symbol of BTQIA+? |
What is a "woman"? Or rather, what defines someone as a "woman"?
Ask 100 women, and you might get 100 different answers. [Ask your Uncle Bob and you're likely to get just one.]
This is because there are a variety of contexts in which one could define a woman, and within each of these contexts, there will still not be one straight answer but lots of bent ones.
Socially or biologically, there is much variation. This is the problem Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson ran into in her Supreme Court Confirmation hearing. Senator Marsha Blackburn asked her to define the word "woman."
- [Buddhism has an answer, a simple answer, and modern people may not like it. There is a book of Buddhist physics and psychology known as the Abhidhamma, and the definitions it contains are clear cut. What it means to be a "woman" may well be a social construct, but it is not arbitrary. At the moment of birth, we become one or the other. This is a biological fact, a binary, at the particle level beyond what science seems to currently be aware of. This does not mean that there is nothing else to be; there is another category for everything else (or two other categories condensed into one, the female P and the male P, which would include hermaphrodites, eunuchs, pansexuals, asexuals, intersexuals, pansexuals, transsexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, crossdressers, and other "two spirit" individuals of all descriptions). This catchall term, P (pandaka), has long been regarded as a third gender, though it has often been dismissed as anyone engaging in any non-normative sexual behavior or with regard to physical anomalies and ambiguities of how one presents -- genotype vs. phenotype -- and certainly of how someone feels in terms of assigned sex, gender role, sexual orientation, and other similar social factors.
 |
| Something in the water? - Ya'think? |
THE UNBELIEVABLE PART: However one feels, dysphoric or euphoric, biological "sex" is imprinted at the minute level of the kalāpa ("particle," "corporeal unit," "produced corporeality"). Not only is it there in a physical individual, but it can also be seen and confirmed by those who develop the ability to see it. What it means, indeed, that is a social construct. For example, "We are Vikings, and Viking men do not cry! If one cries, it is not a man, so kill it, imprison it, marry it, rape it, impale it with a horn helmet, or raise it up, call it 'shaman-queen,' and obey it. That's the rule." Then later in time, with the exact same DNA on the exact same beach: "We are Swedes, and men do cry but it makes other men around them uncomfortable. So if one cries, it is a man, but call it 'crybaby,' 'sissy,' 'wuss,' 'metro,' 'dergooberfarfignewtonpandacoot,' promote it to a position in Human Resources, and leave him be with no romantic date to the big Lutefisk Festival, but he can bring his mother." End of example. This becomes problematic because although it is an objective binary, it is perceived subjectively. Individuals can see it, but unlike showing genes or alleles on a DNA test, it is not yet possible to show what such minute particles look like to others. Strangely, it is not immutable. An individual, wandering on through rebirths, changes sex -- and neither gender nor sex are certain, fixed, and permanent. If that were not hard enough to accept, it gets stranger. There is at least one case of a human who changes from one sex to the other and back. This is a miraculous and extraordinarily rare occurrence, but that it can occurs cautions us not to make hard and fast distinctions about the meaning of our natural sex, assigned sex, sex roles, and genders. Obviously, this is a controversial issue. To make any comment sounds as if Buddhism is dictating sex assignment. Buddhism is not doing that. Karma (the fruition of our former deeds) is doing that. But karma is complex and also accounts for gender (the social construct or set of gendered expectations about an individual, and this gets very messy and complex, particularly how it was understood by scholars in ancient times. There is something more remarkable than the strange occurrence of a sex change during one human life, and that is the power of transformation, which is far more common. Devas possess this power, as do many other categories of beings in Buddhist cosmology, and even some humans develop this power. So what is the power? It is the power to shapeshift, to adopt a sex or appearance as one wishes. Consider what it does not mean: Although one wills to temporarily adopt the form or physical appearance of something else, it is still done while being one thing or the other and not both. A male may temporarily adopt the form of a functional female, and a female the form of a functional male -- assuming that person possesses this special power or knowledge (abhinna, siddhi), but it will not stick. For example, a reptilian (naga) creature may shapeshift and appear as a human male or female but when not sustaining that determination will revert back to its usual form and appearance. One may argue if this is an "illusion" (maya), as it is sometimes described, because such a creature really does temporarily take the physical form of what it wills. Shapeshifters exist. The argument would be that if one is bound to revert to the original form, is the temporary manifestation as something else not therefore a temporary illusion? It becomes a matter of semantics. Yes, it is an illusion because one will rebound and revert, though one wills not to, to what one was originally. No, it is not an illusion because, for the time being, one really has metamorphosed into the form one willed. This power is very rare among humans. It otherwise seems quite common among other beings. Even animals can camouflage. Ghosts shapeshift, as do demons and ghouls (d'jinn, yakshas, rakshasas, maras, asuras), reptilians (nagas), trolls, goblins (kumbhandas), and light beings (devas).]
Jackson's response was rather controversial and has sparked a debate on how to define a woman.
- [The future justice became a defiant moron (or very cunning and manipulative, politically correct speaker) at that moment, unable to make any sensible statement about a definition other than the equivalent of it could be anything.]
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson struggles and can't define "woman"
 |
| Lost in Trans Nation (Grossman) |
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's Supreme Court confirmation hearing was a long, grueling affair. It lasted more than 13 hours and was full of extremely tough and at times harsh questions. One of the toughest, however, was when Senator Marsha Blackburn asked the judge to define the word "woman."
"Well how the F am I supposed to know?" one wishes she would have answered. Instead, she said: "Not in this context, I'm not a biologist," Judge Jackson responded. "In my work as a judge, what I do is I address disputes. If there's a dispute about a definition, people make arguments, and I look at the law, and I decide."
Sen. Blackburn was not at all impressed with this answer. She chastised Jackson immediately: “the fact that you can't give me a straight answer about something as fundamental as what a woman is underscores the dangers of the kind of progressive education that we are hearing about.” Sen. Blackburn stated in the hearing.
The grand debate: What defines a woman?
 |
| The End of Gender (Dr. Debra Soh) |
Readers may be wondering why Jackson's answer and why learning how a potential Supreme Court judge defines a "woman" is so important. It is because, as a Supreme Court judge, Jackson will most definitely preside over cases involving trans rights and
gender politics.
Gender politics in the United States of America is a hot topic currently. This is especially so with several trans rights issues currently in debate. Senators on both sides have since used Jackson's response to talk about their own issues with the debate (2)'
- Related video: The Gender Divide: Conditions That Affect Women More Than Men (Ivanhoe)
Scientists can't define "woman" either
 |
| Buddhism, Sexuality, & Gender |
Many scientists, biologists, and gender law scholars have commended Jackson for her response. They agree that her response might be slightly misleading, but still it wasn't a bad one. This is because while they agree that science and biology could help create a definition for the word, it can't create a conclusive answer, either.
There are billions of women on the planet. Each woman is unique and different, both in a social context and a biological one. Most scientists agree that there is too much variation to be able to clearly, scientifically, define what is a woman (1).
Rebecca Jordan-Young is a scientists and gender studies scholar. In her work, she explores the relationship between science and the social side of gender and sexuality. She says that while biology is a part of what makes a woman a woman and a man a man, it cannot offer a complete definition.
“I don’t want to see this question punted to biology as if science can offer a simple, definitive answer,” she said.
“The rest of her answer was more interesting and important. She said ‘as a judge, what I do is I address disputes. If there’s a dispute about a definition, people make arguments, and I look at the law, and I decide.’ In other words, she said context matters – which is true in both biology and society. I think that’s a pretty good answer for a judge.”
Not a simple question
After the hearing, Blackburn tweeted that her question to define the word "woman" was a simple one. She said that the fact that Jackson couldn't answer it was a major red flag. Many scientists, however, say that it's true: It really is not a simple question.
The answer is not as binary as we once used to say. It used to be, "If you are born with a penis, you are a boy and identify as one. If you are born with a vagina, you are a woman and identify as one." As gender experts point out, however, it is much more complex than that.
In terms of biology, there are at least six different markers for "sex." This includes genitals, gonads, chromosomes, internal reproductive organs, hormones, and their levels, and secondary sex characteristics.
These markers don't always align, however, and aren't necessarily opposite or completely different. Therefore, according to biologists, it is nearly impossible to define a woman based on biology alone.
Dr. House, can you explain this mysterious case of the girl who's a boy?
It is a social question and needs to be answered on a contextual basis
While there are biological markers that exist for sex, we can't completely hinge the definition of male or female in science. In the terms of the law and the judicial system, each case involving this debate needs to take into account both the biological and the social context of the debate.
“As is so often the case, science cannot settle what are really social questions,” said Sarah Richardson, a Harvard scholar, historian, and philosopher of biology who focuses on the sciences of sex and gender and their policy dimensions.
“In any particular case of sex categorization, whether in law or in science, it is necessary to build a definition of sex particular to context.”
Gender studies Professor Kate Mason says that in many cases, judges have to recognize that gender [unlike sex] is not a binary thing. It is fluid. Many people will have their own idea of what gender, or a gender, is, and with what and how they identify.
“I do think that judges and justices sometimes have to make determinations about who is meant by ‘man’ or ‘woman’ in written statutes – and they may have to acknowledge the reality that sex and gender are not binary,” Mason said. “I think Blackburn would prefer a world in which reality was much simpler.”
Sources