What is the biological definition of a woman (and man)?

[Wombat2WombatCombat]

I understand the argument for single sex spaces, but just for the avoidance of any doubt, does anyone have an exact, biological definition of a woman (or man) that we can hold people to? If we want to enforce the idea of single-sex spaces, we will need an exact criteria to determine who is or isn’t a ‘real’ woman, so I was wondering if anyone could tell me exactly what that is?

XX chromosomes?

A woman is an adult human female whose body is designed to produce large immobile gametes, as opposed to men who are designed to produce small mobile gametes - this is true whether or not those biological functions work.

We’ve managed to figure it out pretty well for years!

@DockOTheBay

XX chromosomes?

What about when the SRY gene is crossed over?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome

@MordenLarch

A woman is an adult human female whose body is designed to produce large immobile gametes, as opposed to men who are designed to produce small mobile gametes - this is true whether or not those biological functions work.

How exactly can we quantify that, if you are alright with me asking?

How do you mean ‘quantify it’?

@MordenLarch

How do you mean ‘quantify it’?

Essentially, are you able to elaborate on that? What exact things would we need to see?

Adult human female/Adult human male seems to cover it. What's the problem?

Ask Amnesty. They seem to have no bloody idea.

You can’t have “an exact criteria”. You can have a criterion. Or several criteria.
Why are you so invested in this, anyway? Humans have been able to correctly determine each other’s sex instantly on sight for millennia, without needing a check list of criteria.

@WallaceinAnderland

Adult human female/Adult human male seems to cover it. What's the problem?

What I’m asking is what exactly is an adult human male/female in raw biological terms? How exactly do you distinguish?

Chromosomes

@MordenLarch

A woman is an adult human female whose body is designed to produce large immobile gametes, as opposed to men who are designed to produce small mobile gametes - this is true whether or not those biological functions work.

This is the answer.

I’m not sure what else you’re asking.

Need to see where?

We've managed for millenia to classify 99% of the population appropriately. With modern medical science that is now as good as 100% as DSDs can be correctly identified.

The wheel is fine as it is, we do not need to reinvent it.

I’m not entirely sure the OP is asking in good faith.

Especially with the post about SRY genes.

Mullerian reproductive systems (F) vs wolffian reproductive systems (M). Even if the development process is incomplete, the process can only ever go in only one of two directions.

@Wombat2WombatCombat there are several rare intersex conditions. But suffers have something physically wrong with them - any treatment they have doesn't affect their chromosomes.
You cannot change sex.

@Warmduscher

I’m not entirely sure the OP is asking in good faith.

Especially with the post about SRY genes.

Exactly

Oh, for gods sake, we now have to bend over backwards to define words that have stood us in good stead for millennia.

Woman = adult human female. Of the class that can produce large gametes.

Man = adult human male. Of the class that can produce small, mobile gametes.

This is not hard.

If you are hard of understanding, 'of the class' means that these are people that 'should be able to reproduce', but we can't guarantee that the actual will be able to reproduce.

The end

How do you think we should enforce single-sex spaces, OP? In the past it was simply understood that women and men had their own spaces and it was respected.

A male is someone who belongs to the reproductive class that produces small, mobile gametes. A female is someone who belongs to the reproductive class that produces large, immobile gametes. The reproductive system of an individual may be actual, potential, historic or broken. (I think I may have got that from the estimable Dr Emma Hilton).

A few weeks back there was a terrific post explaining how we use surface characteristics to identify lots of things, including someone's sex. This nonsense about 'not knowing someone's chromosomes' is that: just rubbish. Do we run a chemical analysis on a glass of water before we drink it? No of course not. We use our knowledge of surface characteristics to confirm or refute our belief: is it clear? Is it viscous? Does it smell right? Etc. We learn this as very small children. As we learn to recognise someone's sex with almost uncanny accuracy from a very early age.

Off to bed. Night night 🌙 all.

@Warmduscher

I’m not entirely sure the OP is asking in good faith.

Especially with the post about SRY genes.

I’m sorry if I was rude, it’s just that there’s a lot if complexity with this sort of thing and I’m trying to understand how it all fits in

Women have xx, men xy chromosomes. Just because some individuals differ does not mean the rule is incorrect or that we are all "on a spectrum". Some humans are born without arms, some are born with three arms. Yet humans are not "mammals with a spectrum of 0 to 3 arms". The SRY gene cross over you mention is a disorder, as stated in the Wikipedia article.

When said baby pops out of the womb and the midwife declares boy or girl by looking at their bits