How can I argue this: female without ovaries etc

[omikron]

If the dictionary definition of female is:

1
Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.

Then when a TRA says 'well what about women that don't have ovaries?'

An apple without pips is still an apple. It doesn’t make it an orange.

Nor does painting an orange to look like an apple and adding a fake stalk turn it into an apple.

Why don't we have a definition that encompasses that analogy?

Great analogy by the way

Also, they'll argue that humans aren't fruit.

Then when a TRA says 'well what about women that don't have ovaries?

The dictionary definition is not talking about individual members of a group - but about the group classification as a whole. this is not about individuals.

I can't imagine many females are born without ovaries ( more may have dysfunctional ovaries, though). More are born without a womb ( but do have ovaries) That must be a rare example, and may point to an inter-sex condition.

I see it as “of the sex which bears eggs” is saying that bearing eggs is the norm for females. A bit like saying humans have two legs.
Some humans do have one leg but humans are a two legged species.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Müllerian_agenesis

"An individual with this condition is hormonally normal; that is, the person will enter puberty with development of secondary sexual characteristics including thelarche and pubarche (pubic hair)"

Humans are bipedal, they walk upright on two legs.

Not being able to walk on two legs clearly doesn't make you not-human, it just means something has gone wrong somewhere.

A woman with a faulty reproductive system is still a member of the sex that can produce eggs, just as a woman whose egg producing days are long behind her is a woman.

It's a silly argument. A car with no wheels isn't a skip.

The fact that there are demands that women come up with a definitive definition that includes all women and girls in the world, or we must accept that people with dicks are women/ girls too

Is rank misogyny.

99.9999% of the world knows what male female mean. Even fucking squirrels know which are male and which are female ffs.

Thank you all - very helpful

And yet apparently humans need to pretend they don't know what the difference is in this most basic fundamental categorisation of humans that has been there and known and named forever.

Fucking cavemen knew the difference, yet modern tras genuinely don't know? Bollocks.

The fact that there are demands that women come up with a definitive definition that includes all women and girls in the world, or we must accept that people with dicks are women/ girls too

It's dementing

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe the definitions of male and female are being challenged by TRAs. It is hard to argue with the fact that people are born with either male or female anatomy.

I think it's the definitions of man and woman that are being questioned.

GC argument - should based on biology
TRA argument - should based on identity

I think the ovaries thing is not helpful. You only have working ovaries for about 30 years, in the sense of releasing fertile eggs (and some women never do).
So yes, women are the class of human that is made to release eggs, but only for a relatively short time, and not all of them can!
A better definition is that a female has a vagina and xx chromosomes. But really we all know what a female is.

A person born blind doesn't mean humans are not a sighted species.

A person born with one leg doesn't mean humans are not a bipedal species.

Disorders of developmental pathways are irrelevant.

XX chromosomes??? That's usually a good pointer for me!

Chromosomes

If we discover that someone does not have ovaries, is the immediate response to say, “my goodness, why haven’t they got a penis?”.

Just because someone is missing some of the normal characteristics of their sex, doesn’t mean that we would be uncertain about which characteristics we would expect them to have.

Yes they are challenging male/ female.

A woman is an adult human female.
Therefore if a person with a penis can be a woman, then they are female.

Woman/ man relate to sex and always have.

Anyway yes some say they are female

Additionally if not, why are same sex things increasingly open to men and boys who ID as female.

As an infertile woman I get so fucking pissed off when the TRA start with the “what about women who can’t have children eh eh eh????”

How bloody dare they take the pain of infertility & use it to further their own misogynistic ends?? Get to fuck with that!!

The fact I have no fallopian tunes doesbt maje me a man ffs

Would they agree that human beings have two legs designed for walking?

Then does someone born with only one functioning leg, or with no legs, or someone who for whatever reason cannot walk ceases to be a human being? No, we recognise that the basic human pattern is two legs designed for walking and that sometimes there are developmental or genetic issues that mean the pattern goes wrong. Just like with other animals.

Same with women. There is a basic human female pattern which 96% match. The 1% don't change that. You can't change your chromosomes or your sex. A DNA test long after you're dead will reveal whether you were XX female, XY male. There are no tests for gender because gender is just sexual stereotyping, not an actual thing.

It’s simpler than organs or lack of certain organs.

Are you a human with two (or more) X chromosomes?

If yes then your sex is biologically female.
The end.

Can you tell I've never been much good at maths? 96% and 4%.

Flying The problem with that is that some women do have a Y chromosome, it just doesn’t “work” so they develop as female.Am sure someone will be along to explain properly!