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?

@Wombat2WombatCombat but previous posters are right. Someone with an XX chromosome or an egg producer wtv is a woman!

If you're talking of bathrooms, you could add a transitioned male 🤷🏻‍♀️ but I said earlier in the post, those didn't need laws before: they knew when they were non-threatning to women, they respected the fact that they may be "the scary one" in women only spaces. There were no issues before, it was no news, social media didn't even talk about it!

OP why is the sex ratio in China so skewed towards males? In the era of China's one child policy and a culture which values males more than females how did people know which babies to abort, kill or neglect to make sure their one child was male? Are they confused?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_women_of_China

@Hasselhoffsheadband

God, i find questions like this really offensive.

One sex class of human has oppressed the other for millenia. In all that time no one ever had any trouble figuring out who were the men and who were the women, which people to shit on from a great height based on their sex.

And now, just when women in the Western world at least, have managed to carve out some semblance of what could be deemed 'equality' suddenly its oh so difficult to understand and we have to have this faux philosophical handwringing horseshit about what constitutes male and female?

Bore off.......

Agree

If there is no precise biological characteristic, then I don’t see how any of this can function, as at that point as far as I can tell (assuming they haven’t done anything else except use the facilities) you are essentially bullying someone out of a toilet because they subjectively made you feel a certain way

The biological characteristics that define male and female have already been explained to you by numerous posters.

Male humans have a male-configuration reproductive system.
Female humans have a female-configuration reproductive system.

If you can't remember or don't understand what those configurations are, see my earlier post.

Is this the point we've reached? Gender ideologues have decided that being a man or a woman is just a feeling, so therefore whether we recognise someone as male or female can now only be all about the feelz too?

If you know women, OP, you would know that it would be highly unlikely there would be any confrontation. Toilets aren't a good example here anyway, because chances are, unless there is a queue, it would be pretty short lived and there would be no reason to call security unless he was doing something horrible. More likely that women would take protective measures like not leaving other women alone with him or warning others he was in there. That's really it.

It would be more likely to be an issue in, say, a communal changing room at a gym - and then I would expect someone would go and complain. But then we are into Wi Spa territory - and we know what happened there.

I go back to my original point, though, everyone knows what sex they are. All we are asking for is the right to continue to say that we want single sex spaces to remain single sex - and then everyone knows where they stand.

@Awiltu

If there is no precise biological characteristic, then I don’t see how any of this can function, as at that point as far as I can tell (assuming they haven’t done anything else except use the facilities) you are essentially bullying someone out of a toilet because they subjectively made you feel a certain way

The biological characteristics that define male and female have already been explained to you by numerous posters.

Male humans have a male-configuration reproductive system.
Female humans have a female-configuration reproductive system.

If you can't remember or don't understand what those configurations are, see my earlier post.

Is this the point we've reached? Gender ideologues have decided that being a man or a woman is just a feeling, so therefore whether we recognise someone as male or female can now only be all about the feelz too?

This!

OP dozens of posters, in hundreds of posts, have now explained the characteristics that differentiate male and female humans.

You're either unwilling to listen to them or you're being disingenuous by pretending your question hasn't been comprehensively, politely and repeatedly answered already.

I wonder how many of these remarkable people who assert that there's no way to distinguish between male and female humans would confidently climb into a field with a male bovine?

Great thread OP. I've saved it as it contains so many wonderful / accurate / humorous definitions of the two sexes. Your befuddlement might benefit from watching One Born Every Minute or similar just to clarify some basics? Please keep this bumped for the evening crew to enjoy. Thank you.

There are precise biological characteristics. They are XX and XY chromosomes, and their sequelae which are better described by others than me.

You say you do not see how any of this can function; at the same time the system of two sexes evolved billions of years ago and has to an approximation functioned ever since. Who do you think it is who is missing a trick here?

Hang on, somebody help me out here because I don't understand

The whole accepting males in females spaces is purely based on feelings. There is no biology behind the assertion that males can be females because they feel like they're a female. We're supposed to accept that they are a woman just because they say they are, whilst displaying and owning no quantifiable female biology.

But yet here's OP sneering at females observing male traits and correctly identifying said individuals as males based on quantifiable biological markers. Here's OP writing off biology in one broad stroke as a "feeling", but a feeling is what I'm supposed to trust when a male enters a female space?!

I don't UNDERSTAAAAAAND, make it make sense

Sorry but I don't think for one second the wide eyed questioning of the OP is remotely genuine.
OP you asked what is actually a very simple and basic question in your opening post and then in your very next post you start talking about SRY genes.
That can only come from someone who has actually already done a fair bit of research into sex chromosomes. SRY genes are not something your average person knows much (if anything) about, so don't bat your eyelashes and act as if you really are as obtuse as you're making out.

This thread is not a good faith questioning of biology, I think we can all see that.
However, it does serve to perhaps educate a few lurkers on the lengths people will go to to generate Twitter fodder.

It’s only the first one and maybe second I really want to know about

The first one referred to is likely actions upon seeing a male in the ladies is 'call the police'.

Essentially all you want to know is 'will the ladies call the cops if I use their toilets'?

If that was all you wanted to know OP why didn't you just ask that?

@Awiltu

If there is no precise biological characteristic, then I don’t see how any of this can function, as at that point as far as I can tell (assuming they haven’t done anything else except use the facilities) you are essentially bullying someone out of a toilet because they subjectively made you feel a certain way

The biological characteristics that define male and female have already been explained to you by numerous posters.

Male humans have a male-configuration reproductive system.
Female humans have a female-configuration reproductive system.

If you can't remember or don't understand what those configurations are, see my earlier post.

Is this the point we've reached? Gender ideologues have decided that being a man or a woman is just a feeling, so therefore whether we recognise someone as male or female can now only be all about the feelz too?

The bit I don’t understand is that people keep saying things like ‘male-configuration’ reproductive system and ‘female-configuration’ reproductive system as if that’s all I need, and giving no further elaboration. From my perspective, those are still two highly subjective terms - what do you need to see to make it a ‘male-configured’ reproductive system vs a female one, and where exactly is the line drawn? People are treating this stuff as self evident and refusing to elaborate any further - that’s what I don’t understand. With all of the situations you have described, you guys seem to be saying you either can’t or won’t elaborate, and yet if it’s a self evident as you say, surely it would be super easy to elaborate?

@Theflamingnerd

Hang on, somebody help me out here because I don't understand

The whole accepting males in females spaces is purely based on feelings. There is no biology behind the assertion that males can be females because they feel like they're a female. We're supposed to accept that they are a woman just because they say they are, whilst displaying and owning no quantifiable female biology.

But yet here's OP sneering at females observing male traits and correctly identifying said individuals as males based on quantifiable biological markers. Here's OP writing off biology in one broad stroke as a "feeling", but a feeling is what I'm supposed to trust when a male enters a female space?!

I don't UNDERSTAAAAAAND, make it make sense

Hang on though, the OP may have discovered an exciting new variation on the woke circular definition of a woman as "anyone who identifies as a woman".

I think the OP may be suggesting that a woman is "anyone who feels enough like a woman to make you feel like they're a woman".

The bit I don’t understand is that people keep saying things like ‘male-configuration’ reproductive system and ‘female-configuration’ reproductive system as if that’s all I need, and giving no further elaboration. From my perspective, those are still two highly subjective terms - what do you need to see to make it a ‘male-configured’ reproductive system vs a female one, and where exactly is the line drawn? People are treating this stuff as self evident and refusing to elaborate any further - that’s what I don’t understand.

OP, I elaborated quite a long list for you, complete with correct anatomical terminology. The search function is your friend.

@Wombat2WombatCombat The male and female reproductive systems are sketched out here and here. If you consider their distinction to be subjective, that is your prerogative; however reproductive systems reflect chromosomes, which reflect biological sex. If you consider karyotyping subjective too, that is your prerogative I suppose.

Oh yes dogs aren't easily fooled. Unlike apparently some humans.

"what do you need to see to make it a ‘male-configured’ reproductive system vs a female one, and where exactly is the line drawn? People are treating this stuff as self evident and refusing to elaborate any further - that’s what I don’t understand."

People have explained it over and over again, you just have your gender blinkers on.

Men have a tube shaped appendage that dangles between their legs, with a sac underneath it containing ball shaped objects that have tiny seeds in them which can make a baby.
Ladies don't have these, instead they have a front hole leading to a sac where a baby will grow if two people love eachother very very much and plant a seed there.

I recommend this book OP.

www.amazon.co.uk/How-Babies-Made-Steven-Schepp/dp/1626541043/ref=sr_1_2?crid=1XPPLREP0ZH32&keywords=how+babies+are+made&sprefix=how+babies+are+mad%2Caps%2C63&tag=mumsnetforu03-21&qid=1644515474&sr=8-2

The bit I don’t understand is that people keep saying things like ‘male-configuration’ reproductive system and ‘female-configuration’ reproductive system as if that’s all I need, and giving no further elaboration. From my perspective, those are still two highly subjective terms - what do you need to see to make it a ‘male-configured’ reproductive system vs a female one, and where exactly is the line drawn? People are treating this stuff as self evident and refusing to elaborate any further - that’s what I don’t understand. With all of the situations you have described, you guys seem to be saying you either can’t or won’t elaborate, and yet if it’s a self evident as you say, surely it would be super easy to elaborate?

I'll help you out OP

98% of sexual crime is perpetrated by one of the two human sex classes.

That's where you can draw your fucking line.

You go in the toilet / team/ refuge / prison that matches your BIOLOGICAL sex. If you don't know what sex you are, ask your carer.

@Wombat2WombatCombat

vivariumvivariumsvivaria
I've had this conversation with male friends who cannot believe that I can tell people's sex from the way they get out of a car half way across a supermarket on a foggy day.

These male friends do not recognise that I come from a long line of women who avoided MVAWG at least as long enough to breed. Every single one of my great grandmothers managed to not get murdered before she had a baby.

My assumption is that my male friends don't really LOOK at women. They only see tits and teeth, not a person's whole.

It's gross.

I wish I wasn't a heterosexual because men are just so fucking disappointing
.
"Perhaps the question I’m asking will be clearer if I frame it differently: what observable trait (ie not just a ‘feeling’) do these people have that make them not women? I had assumed that the basis for segregation was on a quantifiable, biological, observable and specific difference between men and women - it was why I subscribed to this ideology in the first place. Is this correct?"

You seem unclear about what an ideology is. An ideology is, by definition, not quantifiable, biological observable or specific difference between men and women.

You also seem unclear about what a question is. What you asked me there is a different question to your original one, not the same question reframed.

Compare it to my crystal clear understanding of what a man is.

Your confusion about what a man is is of no consequence to me. I can see maleness instantly and I am never wrong. I am 90% likely to recognise risk from a male.

I had these skills in place by the time I was 12, so I have used them for well over 40 years to keep myself (mostly) safe from male sexual predators.

If you can't understand the multiple replies to your question that women have taken the time to post on here to help you out, well, that's a shame. But it doesn't change the fact that I see sex and I see it instantly and a male does not go unnoticed in my presence and that is not impacted by how that male regards himself.

If it is a male in my toilet it doesn't really matter that I see his sex. He doesn't see me at all. He is too busy admiring his tits and teeth in the mirror and believing himself to be pulling the wool over the eyes of all the silly ladies who don't realise that he's got a chub on.

We do.

We avert our gaze, we wash our hands, we don't make a fuss and we leave with a neutral face.

He is using me to support his fetish of "passing" or "shocking" or "provoking" women. He's getting aroused by his transgression.

It's boring as fuck.

The bit I don’t understand is that people keep saying things like ‘male-configuration’ reproductive system and ‘female-configuration’ reproductive system as if that’s all I need, and giving no further elaboration.

So someone who can use words like "elaborate" can't understand how to recognise that a vagina is different from a penis.

@Awiltu

The human body has 11 or 12 (depending on how you classify them) organ systems. An organ system is a collection of distinct body structures which all work together to support the same general function. Normal development of all but one of these organs systems results in the same basic anatomical configuration in all humans.

One of these organ systems, the reproductive system, is dimorphic – that is, normal development produces 2 structurally and functionally distinct forms of this organ system. These forms are designated male and female.

Our DNA provides a blueprint or set of instructions for development of all the structures in the human body, including the reproductive system. The reproductive system has several basic components which take on different forms in the male and female systems:

• Gonads – ovaries (female) vs testes (male). These are the organs that produce gametes or reproductive cells - ova (large, not self-mobile) in females, spermatozoa (small, self-mobile) in males
• Organs supporting gamete transport from gonads – Fallopian tubes or salpinges (female) vs epididymis and vas deferens (male)
• Organs making substances that support healthy gamete function – seminal vesicles and prostate making components of semen (male)
• Organs that support gamete delivery for fertilisation – vagina and cervix (female) vs penis (male)
• Organs that support gestation and delivery (females only) – uterus, cervix, vagina (plus ovaries for hormonal production and a temporary organ, the placenta, for vascular/nutritional support)

Normal execution of the complex developmental pathway that results in these distinct sets of internal reproductive system organs also produces 2 distinct configuration of external reproductive structures (external genitalia). Normal development of a male-pattern reproductive system is linked with a specific sequence of genetic material (the SRY gene) which is typically located on the Y chromosome.

Therefore, in the absence of disordered development of this pathway – i.e. in the overwhelming majority of humans – the configuration of the external genitalia is a reliable indicator of the configuration of the internal reproductive system, and the presence of absence of a Y chromosome in the karyotype (chromosome profile) is also a reliable indicator of the configuration of the reproductive system.

In disorders or differences of sexual development, this complex pathway doesn’t proceed in the way that would be expected from the simple criterion of the presence or absence of a Y chromosome. So there is a mismatch between genetic makeup and the configuration of the internal and/or external reproductive system structures. People with DSDs are still male or female; in fact many types of DSD are sex-specific and only occur in either males or females. There is no third sex and no third gamete.

The anatomical structures that develop in utero as the cardinal features of female and male reproductive systems are the primary sexual characteristics Secondary sexual characteristics are the changes in existing anatomical structures that occur as sexual maturity develops during puberty. A man is an sexually mature human whose natural reproductive system conforms most closely to a male phenotype, and a woman is a sexually mature human whose natural reproductive system configuration conforms most closely to a female phenotype.

In practice, everyone knows exactly – and in explicit biological terms - what a man is and what a woman is.
No parent takes a 16-year-old child with a penis and testicles to the GP to investigate why they haven’t started menstruating.
No-one planning a family in a heterosexual relationship thinks that both partners need an ultrasound to work out which of them will be the one to take maternity leave.

Just because we can’t easily a natural phenomenon according to a single black-and-white criterion doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, or that we don’t apply our knowledge of it at a practical level on an everyday basis.

Physicists can’t agree on the fundamentals of whether light is a wave or a particle. Doesn’t stop us knowing that turning on an electric lamp will illuminate a dark room.

Your description here gives a very helpful description of broad differences in the typical development of male vs female individuals, but doesn’t state anywhere what the exact criteria is that makes them one of the other. The closest you seem to come to it is “ A man is an sexually mature human whose natural reproductive system conforms most closely to a male phenotype, and a woman is a sexually mature human whose natural reproductive system configuration conforms most closely to a female phenotype.” However, this has the exact same problem as the previous responses as it is just as subjective and offers no elaboration on what it means

Well, @Wombat2WombatCombat, it's easy to criticise.

How about you share your definition with us?

The bit I don’t understand is that people keep saying things like ‘male-configuration’ reproductive system and ‘female-configuration’ reproductive system as if that’s all I need, and giving no further elaboration. From my perspective, those are still two highly subjective terms - what do you need to see to make it a ‘male-configured’ reproductive system vs a female one, and where exactly is the line drawn? People are treating this stuff as self evident and refusing to elaborate any further - that’s what I don’t understand. With all of the situations you have described, you guys seem to be saying you either can’t or won’t elaborate, and yet if it’s a self evident as you say, surely it would be super easy to elaborate?

What, like brow bones, jaw lines, hair lines, the size of just about everything, coupled with a massive sense of entitlement? That sort of thing?

My question to you is if no one can tell anything, how come this male is actually going in the ladies?

If no-one can tell anything and none of it matters why would the man care either way if the women ask him to use a different facility?