Science says there's no simple answer to define 'woman.' USA Today

This is where it has gone off the rails. From the article:

But Jordan-Young said she sees Jackson's answer, particularly the second half, reflecting the necessity of nuance. While traditional notions of sex and gender suggest a simple binary – if you are born with a penis, you are male and identify as a man and if you are born with a vagina, you are female and identify as a woman – the reality, gender experts say, is more complex.

Again, a complete misrepresentation of the issue. Why is there any need to bring identity into it? This is still flailing.

Science doesn't determine definitions.

It chooses definitions to help it determine facts.

Given well-chosen definitions you can come up with astounding predictions like "women can become pregnant" and "men cannot become pregnant".

With badly-chosen definitions... you can't.

Anyway, so much of this stuff is so boring. It's just a pointless game where you pretend you don't know how nouns and language work, but only for one very specific word, while retaining that knowledge to use all the other words to tear that one word down.

Paraphrasing someone else's comment from the other day, if they don't know what "woman" means, then we can take the rest of the article to read

Marsha Blackburn ug Ketanaji Brown Jackson ug ug 'ug.' Ug ug ug ug ug ug.

Alia E. Dastagir | Ug ug

Ug ug

* Ug Marsha Blackburn ug Ketanji Brown Jackson ug ug "ug", ug ug "ug ug ug ug".
* Blackburn ug ug, ug ug ug Jackson ug ug ug ug
* Ug ug ug ug ug ug ug ug ug ug ug ug ug ug.

I've been watching King Critical videos recently and he does make some interesting points about this whole definition question, when taken to the chromosomes detail level.

He basically points out that we have working definitions of things that work perfectly well with some exceptions. So people recognise that what a chair is, but if asked to give a definition that would distinguish a chair from any other thing with a seat it gets tricky pretty quickly.

That there are some people edge cases where chromosomes etc don't match up as expected doesn't detract from the fact that whether someone is male or female can usually be determined at a glance.

"There are at least six different biological markers of “sex” in the body: genitals, chromosomes, gonads, internal reproductive structures, hormone ratios and secondary sex characteristics. None of the six is strictly dichotomous, Jordan-Young said, and the different markers don’t always align*"
*
I'd be happy with 3/6 to be honest. If you have at least 50% of the 'female' characteristics this 'scientist' starts make it so hard to define a woman, you can come in my space.

So that's;

Vagina not penis
XX not XY
Ovaries not Testes
Uterus present
Oestrogen not Testosterone
Breasts and small feet and less muscle mass not beard and big feet and more muscle mass

Obviously the final category would be nebulous, maybe if it comes down to that the test should be 'can a panel of women pick them out of a lineup of confirmed women'. Basically the test we always used before.

Yeah, but you can bet your bottom dollar they'll know if a woman is a woman when they want to get them into bed.

They can’t define a woman but somehow agree there are billions of women on the planet?

Why do we always have these articles and questions about how to define a woman? If it is so hard to define "woman" then it must be equally difficult to define "man".
Why aren't MPs and scientists scratching they heads trying to define what is a "man"?

I'm a biologist and I have no problems defining what a woman is, and neither has dp who is a fellow biologist. If USA Today wants to talk to me for a definiton they can PM me.

All their scientists appear to have “and gender studies” in the name of their field of expertise, as far as I can see.

I wonder who gave birth to them

They're sitting there alive and born and everything and they don't know what a woman is. Sure, Jan. They presumably sprang fully formed from Zeus' head or magic seafoam or something.

I think as an answer it was pretty clever and carefully worked out.

Despite the fact that I'm on the 'GC side' of this 'issue', I do note that another answer to this question could be 'a woman is someone who gets this question in public as a punishment for having a successful career'.

I'm going to stop asking them to define 'woman' and see what they say when asked to define 'man' or male. Obviously can't say has a penis can they?...

If no one can define what a woman is, how can anyone identify as a woman?

If you cannot define something (and a 'feeling' is not a definition of a sexed body) clearly then would it not be impossible to identify as and then attempt to live as a nebulous concept?