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?

you heard it here people! women must pass an objective test that @Wombat2WombatCombat can run to be classified as women.

It is a bit , isn't it?

Also I'm reminded of Jam's sketch for some reason. "Jobs they're particularly good at"...

Just out of interest, wombat, seeing as you appear to be struggling mightily with the concept of biological sex, what do you think a woman is ? You obviously don’t think a woman is a “biological female” because you don’t seem to believe that biological female can be adequately defined. So are you finally going to present your view to us?

@WeeBisom

Just out of interest, wombat, seeing as you appear to be struggling mightily with the concept of biological sex, what do you think a woman is ? You obviously don’t think a woman is a “biological female” because you don’t seem to believe that biological female can be adequately defined. So are you finally going to present your view to us?

wombat has said they understand the argument for single sexed spaces but refused to define what they believe single sex is which is kind of interesting.

I'm rather reminded of a toddler going "but whyyyyy?" in response to every answer.

Yes!

@DdraigGoch

I'm rather reminded of a toddler going "but whyyyyy?" in response to every answer.

yes quite like that! I think the OP may just have a very rigid personality though and yearn for things to be more black and white than they can ever really be. I'm not sure he understands the purpose of classification systems either but he does sound very young so may develop as he matures. This thread might be a useful resource for him to reflect on when he's ready.

I'd like to add that I have never in all of my years on Mumsnet or any feminist group, ever seen any woman genuinely claim that being an infertile woman means you're not actually a woman.
I have seen shitloads of bad faith players claim that women talking about women's bodies means we're somehow saying the above.
This whole "so you're saying that infertile women aren't women" is such a massive strawman that its practically a wicker man.

The patience of women! You can see why motherhood and dealing with the toddler (and teenager) why? prepares so many of us to deal with adults disconnected from facts and reality.

And just to add because this is irritating me, if trans activists genuinely thought you couldn't tell the difference between trans women and women, they wouldn't be always going on about 'cis' women.
They're literally putting us into a stereotypes category based the kind of biology we have while simultaneously telling us off for recognising that we have that biology but refusing the stereotype.
This is all nonsense and waffle.

OP is frustrated that we are not defining female in a way that enables him to go 'gotcha TW have long hair too so TWAW'. The 'traits' he is after are cultural stereotypes and nothing to do with biological sex. The definition of sex is one that applies not only to homo sapiens but also other mammals, insects, plants etc and just involves gametes.

This thread has been amazing, as I said upthread, the patience shown is impressive - and definitely benefits us lurkers. If this board was allowed just one “pinned” thread, then I’d almost choose this above “break it down for me”.

Very interesting to note that a few regulars have made not one appearance between them to a) assist the OP or b) dispute any of the responses.

As an aside, the thread made me realise I don’t really know much about wombats. Spent a few minutes on Google which was nice. Bums of steel which they use for both fun and fighting. And I never knew that produce up to 100 poos a day which are cube-shaped - a fair number of which the OP has been dumping in this thread over the last couple of days.

The issue is, as far as I can tell, nobody is able to define it any more specifically than ‘reproductive system built to produce immotile gametes’
What more do you want? That's pretty bloody specific.

Furries

I love wombats. They are wonderful creatures but I must admit that you actually don't want one running at you. They are very dense and can cause great damage if they knock you over. And they are faster than you think too. And noisy when they get riled. Had one who thought my husband's snoring was an imposter and the squealing they made in the middle of the night was horrendous, until they gave up and ran away.

Their teeth constantly grow too.

@Furries

This thread has been amazing, as I said upthread, the patience shown is impressive - and definitely benefits us lurkers. If this board was allowed just one “pinned” thread, then I’d almost choose this above “break it down for me”.

Very interesting to note that a few regulars have made not one appearance between them to a) assist the OP or b) dispute any of the responses.

As an aside, the thread made me realise I don’t really know much about wombats. Spent a few minutes on Google which was nice. Bums of steel which they use for both fun and fighting. And I never knew that produce up to 100 poos a day which are cube-shaped - a fair number of which the OP has been dumping in this thread over the last couple of days.

It's quite the realisation to see the extraordinary lengths some people will go to to make the word woman be based on nothing. Other than that what they want it to be as a self-serving resource.

We often talk about linguistic gymnastics, but when people who clearly have reasonable command of language are willing to betray themselves to this extent, it's sobering.

It's really not pleasant to see quite how far some people are willing to go knowing it places women and girls in danger.

The gametes need to be dressed up in long blond hair and say "hi girls!" then struggle to head off for a pillow fight before they are recognised as immotile i think.

either that or wombat is trying to tell us that we need to wait for everyone to have xRay vision before anyone can win the contest to get into the women's bathroom.

because women's things are always prizes to be hard fought for. which i think is the roundabout way of saying women are still prizes to be won in a fight. as long as you can compete, fight hard to pass, to beat the recognition machine, if you win, you should get access to women.

Can I ask OP something?

If DSDs simply did NOT exist, would you be happy that the definition of a woman was someone with XX chromosomes, and a male was someone with XY chromosomes?

Because that's pretty damn specific and irrefutable.

If you take DSDs out of the equation, then the maths are really very simple.
If 100% of the time, XY led to male characteristics and production / equipment for sperm production, and XX led to female characteristics and production / equipment for ova production, would you be happy then?

Because in reality, that IS what happens.

Are you aware of the statistics that have been mentioned in this thread?
The above holds true for 99.9% of the ENTIRE POPULATION.
Can you tell me what is wrong with that definition?

@Helleofabore - they certainly look sturdy! Blimey, your husband must have one hell of a snore (sounds like a new username for you). How on earth do you manage to sleep.

Interesting re their teeth. I wonder if that’s why the OP has got their teeth into these questions - maybe they are physically unable to let go. Should we be calling a wildlife vet instead of responding on here?

It astounds me that the world can very easily define woman when:

• laws are being made to imprison women who choose not to continue a pregnancy
• decide which sex it is NOT illegal to rape in a marriage
• determine whether or not to mutilate their genitalia for cultural purity reasons
• determine which babies should be abandoned or killed because they're too much trouble and cost to raise
• setting pay rates, and identifying progression opportunities

......

But when it comes to defining whether or not a man should be allowed into a female only space, all of a sudden the definition of woman is an oblique and confusing thing.

Can I ask OP something?

you can try. They ignore anything that is inconvenient.

Well, we've had everything the OP can throw at the wall to see if it sticks.

1. Existence of intersex/DSDs
2. Infertile women
3. What are you going to do about it anyway?
4. Biology denying
5. Sex is a spectrum and sperm can morph into eggs somehow

Have I missed any?

Here we go, naked male and females OP can you work out the traits that ate in common between the females in both pictures and which distinguish then from the males:

There isn't one defn, the IoC have a defn by biology for women's and men's sports. At the moment Many women are "men" if they want to run 400m or more, but women if they are happy running 100/200 etc.

This defn by biology has a long and harmful history, which is why it's mostly been dumped.
www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/magazine/the-humiliating-practice-of-sex-testing-female-athletes.html

People who seriously suggest a "biological" defn should be used for access to spaces need to explain how that could possibly ever work. It took years for instance to decide Caster Semenya was eligible for some women's sports but not others. Lots of invasive tests and humiliation. It would be a human rights disaster, although fortunately completely practically impossible.

Furries. Sadly, with a floor between us.

I really found the username of OP a little offensive. Because wombats are territorial but they are not combat creatures. Kangaroos are. Wombats will have a grouse at each other, try to bite but that is it. I have watch kangaroos box for 15-20 minutes. And there 'boxing', ie they are kicking each other, echoes over long distance.

I didn't want to say anything, but I do feel that OP should define just how 'combative' wombats are.

@Babdoc

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.

This.

This whole argument is such a red herring.

@Lovelyricepudding

Here we go, naked male and females OP can you work out the traits that ate in common between the females in both pictures and which distinguish then from the males:

mmm.... zucchini flowers. Delicious stuffed, battered and fried! even better with a tiny little zucchini on the end.