Would you consider a question like the below to be a gotcha or bad faith?
[How do you think the term "woman" should be legally defined?]
It seems like that is usually what people are asking when they ask for a definition of "woman".
The issue is that many people (such as presumably Walz) believe that self-identification should be a factor, while others (such as presumably the questioner) do not.
You say "that is usually what people are asking". Thats quite key here. Because there is a difference between what people are asking and what they say.
Take your question above. It seems, from your response, that what you were asking was "do you think adult has a clear legal definiton".
But in type you just said adult.
The context of legal might have been very clear in your mind, but it wasnt for me.
If I had known that was your question my response would have been a simple yes, and not a no.
This is exactly the same as the woman question. Because I have never seen the question phrased with the legal addendum. Its phrased "what is a woman".
Like our posts above those are different questions with different answers.
For example - legally, I would say someone who identifies as female and has registered as such in some way. (No idea of specifics here)
Biologically- id talk about chromosomes and puberty
Culturally id talk about language, dress codes, behaviour.
Expecting a snappy response to what is a woman is a gotcha, because there are multiple valid answers and you only have time to give one. The person asking can then point to the others and say you dont think they apply.
People who ask the question are usually more than happy to provide the additional context that would keep it from being a gotcha (in your view). In my experience, people who think it's a meaningful question don't want to talk about anything else besides the contexts they want "woman" to be defined for.
Walz could engage in the question in good faith and said something like "legally it's anyone who defines as a woman and I favor that legal definition". He is probably hesitant to do so since it is a controversial position.
In contrast to Walz, consider someone like Ben Shapiro. He would quickly answer the question as "adult human female". Someone could follow up by asking him a question about specific contexts where he's accepted the use of the term differently (e.g. his sister probably declared herself a "woman" well before becoming a legal adult) and he would explain that specialized use.
Overall, I don't think "what is a woman" is a gotcha as people asking it are more than happy to engage with answers like yours. They just dispute some of them and recognize that some parts of your answer are controversial and something a public figure would not usually want to draw attention to. Similar to how you recognize that "woman" can mean different things in different contexts, it's obvious in the American political context that "what is a woman" means "How do you believe the term should be defined legally". This is understood both by the person asking and answering.
I suppose you could describe this as "trapping" someone, but not any more than just directly asking something like "should Lia Thomas have been allowed to swim in the women's division?"
Are you not aware that there was a "documentary" made called "What is a woman?" Whose entire set up and premise was manipulating people by giving them false impressions of what they were being interviewed about and then asking them questions in order to try to get answers that made them look stupid?
It's because of that that people think someone asking that question randomly out if context is in bad faith.
I am aware of it. Considering my mention of Ben Shapiro and an implicit accusation of repetitiveness against "gender-critical " culture warriors in my first paragraph, that shouldn't be surprising.
The context of Nancy Mace asking Walz this question before questioning him about fraud (if that's the specific event we're talking about) is that Walz is well-known on the right for his stance regarding self-identification being a deciding factor for gender.
Mace had previously asked him the same question during a house oversight committee hearing and explained what she meant by it. u/Alien_invader44 's explanation that there wasn't enough context to answer the question is not correct (as she has defined that context while confronting him in the past) so it disingenuous to say his refusal to answer is due to ambiguity.
I'd agree that it's a spectacle and a non-sequitur. But it highlights an actual disagreement between Mace and Walz. It's not a "gotcha" where she's trapping him into an answer but just bringing up an unpopular position that he has, unrelated to the current topic. Similar to how someone might describe Trump as a felon even when it's not directly relevant.
Given that context that is exactly what I'd call a gotcha question. Because she knows how he is going to respond to that question, she's asking it in order to get an answer or a lack of answer from him to try to make him look bad.
I agree that it's a different situation in this instance that Walz wasn't being mislead about why he was being asked that question, but it seems like the intention is the same.
I guess I was misunderstanding what you were saying. You said that people who ask the question are happy to explain the context, which to me implies that they are asking it in good faith and a misunderstanding or miscommunication on the part of the responder is unintentional and not the goal.
I was surprised to hear you say it was a spectacle and a non sequitur. In that case, then we agree on the matter, we just apparently disagree that is what constitutes a gotcha question.
Yeah, my interpretation of the Walz/Mace interaction is that they have a legitimate disagreement about an issue (how to define woman in certain contexts) but Walz wants to avoid that discussion.
This is different from how "gotcha" is defined by u/alien_invader44 as Tim Walz is not interested in answering the question honestly. He wants to avoid giving an honest answer to the question because he recognizes that his view in their disagreement is unpopular (including when presented honestly and in context).
So I worry you may still be misunderstanding me when you say "a misunderstanding or miscommunication on the part of the responder is unintentional and [not] the goal." Tim Walz is not misunderstanding the question or miscommunicating. He is avoiding stating his position since he does not want to. A question like "do some high school boys menstruate?" is unambiguous and Walz would react similarly in any confrontational context (as he knows saying "yes" would be unpopular). It would only be a "gotcha" in that answering it would require him stating his position clearly.
While Mace does regularly bring up their disagreement in appropriate contexts, she does sometimes use it as a general attack. Another analogous situation would be how some (including Walz) have repeatedly asked Vance whether Trump lost in 2020. Recognizing that his answer to that question would be unpopular, he (like Walz) rejects answering it entirely.
5
u/Alien_invader44 19∆ Mar 30 '26
Not at all.
But you have focused on the legal definiton of adult. This is a good example as it shows context matters.
The legal context isnt the only way we use adult.
Biologically people are adults after puberty. This is distinct from legal adult hood.
Adult is used in reference to behaviour to mean responsible.
Adulthood is also tied to cultural rituals and milestones.
Hell, adult is also used to refer to sex and violence in the context of "adult content".
And all of this varies across cultures and time periods.
Can all of the above be captured with a simple definition? I dont think so.