Jennifer Saul (University of Sheffield)
Dan López de Sa (ICREA, Univ. of Barcelona)
Manuel Hernández Iglesias (Universidad de Murcia)
Genoveva Martí (ICREA, Univ. of Barcelona)
Mari Mikkola (Lancaster Univ.)
Thomas Jacobi (Univ. of Fribourg)
Philosophers of language have tended to focus on examples that are not politically significant in any way. We spend a lot of time analysing natural kind terms: We think hard about ‘water’ and ‘pain’ and ‘arthritis’. But we don’t think much about the far more politically significant kind terms (natural or social—it’s a matter for dispute) like ‘race’, ‘sex’, ‘gender’, ‘woman’, ‘man’, ‘gay’ and ‘straight’. In this paper, I will try to show, using the example of ‘woman’, that it’s worth thinking about terms like these, for at least three reasons: (1) There are some interesting puzzles, and philosophers of language like puzzles. (2) Politically significant terms matter to people’s lives-- and it’s worth spending at least some of our energy thinking about things that matter in this way. (3) Interesting methodological issues emerge at the intersection of philosophy of langauge and politics.
According to most ordinary speakers and dictionaries, ‘woman’ is a sex term—a term that picks out those who have certain biological traits. Traditionally, feminist academics have used ‘woman’ as a gender term—a term that picks out those who have certain social traits, or who occupy a particular social role. Both of these views face severe difficulties. In this paper, I put forward and consider a view on which ‘woman’ is neither a sex term nor a gender term. Instead, it has a complex, contextually shifting extension, sometimes picking out a biologically defined group and sometimes a socially defined group. This view is not without its problems either.
My goals in this paper are to (1) Show that there is an interesting and difficult puzzle about the term ‘woman’; and (2) Examine and begin to explore some relatively novel methodological issues that arise in considering this puzzle. My goal is not, ultimately, to argue for a particular analysis of ‘woman’. Instead, it is to begin an exploration of the sorts of issues that arise when looking at this sort of term-- and to hopefully convince at least some of you that there’s something interesting to look at here.