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?

[quote RainbowBridge67]@titchy

"You specified 'biologically' male. Biologically they are male. Every cell in their body is male. With a Y chromosome and everything. Medically you are male."

So, sex is determined by sex and chromosomes. Alright.

By those criteria, this woman who has given birth is biologically male. Meaning that a male has given birth:
www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mostly-male-woman-gives-birth-to-twins-in-medical-miracle-10033528.html

95% cells in her body are male, and she has a Y chromosome and everything. Which by your stated criteria, makes one biologically male.[/quote]
What have DSDs got to do with anything? Are you suggesting that transwomen have a DSD then? You're gonna need to evidence that if true.

Goodness - 2 brand new posters on Mumsnet have found their way here to this little insignificant corner and used this thread to demonstrate their woeful lack of understanding about facts, science and biology - and women's rights..
Well done to all the posters who have so generously shared their knowledge - despite it falling on deaf ears.

"Noooo, stop pointing out the glaring hole in my definition of sex, t-that's offensive!!"

Stop having a shitty, easily-refuted definition of sex or pretending intersex/DSD people don't exist or should be ignored whenever their existence is inconvenient to you.

The fact remains, you cannot say sex is defined by cells or chromosomes, when there are clear examples indicating otherwise

Actually Rainbow while you are aggressively posting. Please go and find my definition of sex on this thread. Because now you are treating everyone on this thread like a hive mind.

But yes, your sex is coded in your cells. A person with a medical condition is not be said not to exist, they are however exceptions to the definition and do not disprove the theory. Because they have medical conditions. And they are either male or female.

*"Stop calling me heterosexual, it's called being normal!!"

This is what you're doing. Your objection to the term 'cis' is purely due to a spiteful refusal to treat trans people as in any way legitimate.

Cis means not trans. If you're not trans, you're cis. Simple as that.*

Wow, there's wrong and then there's arrogantly, mysogynistic and aggressively wrong! Cis does not mean 'not trans' - 'woman' does. Cis assumes my gender identity. I don't have one. Like most women. Simple as that. You can all me heterosexual until the cows come home btw. I've never objected to that. I just don't want people to refuse to respect my identity and then to aggressively dress up my wish to identify myself as spiteful in some playground level tantrum.

Oh, did OP send out the bat signal?

@Helleofabore

"But yes, your sex is coded in your cells."

So, this woman who has given birth is a male, since the sex coded in her cells is "male":
www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mostly-male-woman-gives-birth-to-twins-in-medical-miracle-10033528.html

Or does sex magically stop being coded in cells in this instance? Or is it "offensive" to even question your deeply flawed framework?

Dear lurkers, I do hope you're finding the latest contributor highly educational

I disagree Rainbow. I think you are the problem here. Most women have no problem with men considering themselves to be a trans woman if they accept that they are man. Women will stand with transwomen to break down the barriers they face - and there are sadly plenty. But when a small number of transwomen decide that they now want to redefine biological terms and access women's sports and women's only awards etc. they reduce the support for respectful trans people. They set things back and they cause harm.

@TheElementsSong

Oh, did OP send out the bat signal?

There's no doubt that men determined to insist that safe single sex spaces for women and girls are transphobic seem to spend a lot of time on here .

@Goatsaregreat

Goodness - 2 brand new posters on Mumsnet have found their way here to this little insignificant corner and used this thread to demonstrate their woeful lack of understanding about facts, science and biology - and women's rights.. Well done to all the posters who have so generously shared their knowledge - despite it falling on deaf ears.

Don't worry - not falling on deaf ears. It's being laid out in black and white for ALL, lurker and poster alike, to see. The argumentativeness, the whiney, the general non-existence of any substance whatsoever. All clearly laid out.

Rainbow and wombat - we thank you

cor blimey

Truly the feminist milkshake brings all the nutjobs to the yard

oh and @Wombat2WombatCombat, seriously mate, paragraphs are your friend

I mean I'm skipping all your posts anyway due to them being bad faith bollocks, but if you do want more people to read your musings, try the enter key. It's just over there >>

I'm disappointed that you have used such cliched arguments to be honest.

WHAT ABOUT D.S. DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES????

Please elaborate on your argument and be sure to include clownfish, infertile women, the spectrum of sex, and any other boring mental gymnastics that you need to somehow prove that 2+2=5.

[quote RainbowBridge67]@Helleofabore

"But yes, your sex is coded in your cells."

So, this woman who has given birth is a male, since the sex coded in her cells is "male":
www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mostly-male-woman-gives-birth-to-twins-in-medical-miracle-10033528.html

Or does sex magically stop being coded in cells in this instance? Or is it "offensive" to even question your deeply flawed framework?[/quote]
Rainbow she is one of the teeny tiny number of people who can't easily be categorised. That does not negate the categories.

[quote RainbowBridge67]@Helleofabore

"But yes, your sex is coded in your cells."

So, this woman who has given birth is a male, since the sex coded in her cells is "male":
www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mostly-male-woman-gives-birth-to-twins-in-medical-miracle-10033528.html

Or does sex magically stop being coded in cells in this instance? Or is it "offensive" to even question your deeply flawed framework?[/quote]
Again (third time lucky here I'm hoping), what does this have to do with transgenderism, or the oppression of women, who gave been recognised as female for millenia?

I agree, the lurkers must be agog, this thread is wild!!!

wombat are you still there? Genuinely hoping you to tell me what I have in common with a transwoman that I don't have in common with a man.

@Whatiswrongwithmyknee

"Cis does not mean 'not trans' - 'woman' does."

Uh, no? Also, are you under the impression trans women are the only trans people?

"Cis assumes my gender identity. I don't have one. Like most women"

"Woman" is a gender identity. Calling yourself a woman is stating your gender identity. No one is assuming anything, people are correctly pointing out you have the same gender identity as theme you were assigned at birth.

Thanks so much, OP and Rainbow for your incredibly helpful work! Please please carry on posting more of your beautifully illustrative posts

@Whatiswrongwithmyknee

I'm saying that the existence of intersex/DSD people demolishes your argument that sex is determined by "every cell in your body", when you're already aware of instances where that criteria does not work.

No-one has denied that people with DSD (very tiny number) are not always easily categorised into male or female. This does not mean that the criteria does not work though. It means there are disorder of sexual development - which we already knew. As people have said before, we know that the median average person has less than 2 legs. This does not mean it's incorrect to say that people have 2 legs and to design trousers to suit that.

I did not believe categories were meaningless going into this discussion, which was the context I believed in sex segregated spaces.

Your argument is a nonsense argument unless you define sex. You have chosen not to accept the scientific biological one but have not given another definition other than your wafty one of 'what someone says they are'. Even if we accepted that and didn't worry about the lack of any shared definition - tell us why we need to be segregated according to 'what someone says they are'? What do you think I have in common with a transwoman which justifies locking me in a prison cell with them? What do I have in common with them that I don't have in common with a man?

Your first point is not in response to my post but addresses points I have been attempting to make about your analogy. It is not incorrect to state the humans are typically bipedal, however it would be a mistake to state that all humans are bipedal, and to treat being bipedal as a defining trait of a human such that if you are not bipedal, you are not human.

With regards to your second point, assuming sex can be defined in the context of a male/female binary, it would be considered to be a biological trait or collection of traits that determine you as male or female. If the male/female binary is unviable, then the definition of sex would expand to incorporate all of the various biological traits which can be assessed on a case by case basis as a means of categorisation and/or segregation. The ‘what you say you are’ definition refers to gender, not sex - this is a potential alternative method of classification which would retain the male/female terms (but not be composed solely of them) and depending on the situation could also be used for classification. In your prison cell situation, the similarity could be due to a number of things (assuming will are still in the ‘binary sex is nonviable’ circumstance) - it could be biological factors like strength or testosterone levels or some other physical characteristic or characteristics, a shared gender and way of referring to oneself and worldview, any other shared characteristic (I don’t know enough about your circumstances or the circumstances of the hypothetical trans woman to make any direct comparison) or even that it was determined trait based segregation offered no tangible benefits, and that’s just who you happened to end up with.

"Woman" is a gender identity

what excellent value for money our new visitor is

love a frother

""
""You are the one making it unsafe for trans people to be open about being trans, you are the one pushing against trans people's identities being respected, giving trans people every reason to hide their trans status and go stealth, and this patient's blood is on your hands.""

Nope.
The blood is on the hands of the people who tell children and other vulnerable people that they can ever change sex in any meaningful way.
And you are dripping with it.

"Woman" is a gender identity.

Erm, woman is not an 'identity'. How very offensive to those women who cannot and have never been able to 'identify' out of their womanhood.

and ooh, look @Wombat2WombatCombat, you found the enter key

I still reckon you could break up the old wall o text a little more

I mean I still won't read it, we're very past that

Rainbow she is one of the teeny tiny number of people who can't easily be categorised. That does not negate the categories.

It does negate the universality of the categories though, and potentially the notion of defined traits that ‘make’ someone male or female, thus undermining any attempt to draw binary dividing lines on the basis of them

@Hasselhoffsheadband

"Again (third time lucky here I'm hoping), what does this have to do with transgenderism"

It has everything to do with how we define sex, and how we define "female"/"woman".

@Whatiswrongwithmyknee

"Rainbow she is one of the teeny tiny number of people who can't easily be categorised."

And how are trans people not becoming part of that tiny number of people who can't be easily categorized over the course of medical transition?

If "female sex chromosomes" aren't a requirement here, why should they be a requirement for trans women?