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?

Does anyone hold out any hope for me getting an answer regarding what I have in common with a transwoman than I don't with a man?

Seems surprisingly hard to answer given that wombat believes we should retain sex segregated spaces so long as men can get into the womens if they want.

@Helleofabore

Right.

Woman had Swyer Syndrome. She did indeed have a Difference in Sex development. With a functioning uterus and I assume a vagina since she was married and had no idea she had Swyer Syndrome.

That she could actually carry any pregnancy would indicate that despite (95% of her 'chromosomes') her body was formed around the production of large gametes. Otherwise there is NO way she could have carried any pregnancy to full term. EVER. There simply would not have been the fully connected systems to do so. That you do not realise this, is pretty clear you have never in your life carried a foetus. Because it is more than just a baby in a bag. It requires a fully connected system to ensure the correct processes happen at the correct time.

I repeat, that you don't understand this is YOUR issue. Not ours.

This case does not disprove that female bodies are formed around the production of large gametes, whether this occurs or not, or ever has occurred. In fact, it fully supports that definition. Otherwise, this pregnancy would have never have produced these children.

There is NO MENTION of streak testes in that article. So, YOU have no idea whether she had streak testes or streak ovaries - all the reporter has recorded is 'no ovaries' which could mean anything.

Instead, you have posted this link repeated as a gotcha. FUCKING OFFENSIVE to use this woman's medical condition for your own gain the way you have been.

Just to clarify to all the readers of this thread, before it gets to 1000 posts.

Rainbow has continually posted an article about a women with Swyer Syndrome, a DSD that is actually quite difficult to assess whether the person is male or female.

I repeat again though. That this woman could actually carry this pregnancy is a sign that her body was formed (despite the supposed 95% male reported) around the production of large gametes, despite never doing so.

why? because her body had all the systems and functions already in place to carry this pregnancy. She could not have carried these children if this was not so. It also did not mention whether she had 'streak' gonads.

Rainbow is posting this as a 'gotcha' but it actually shows that remarkably sex is quite clear in the end.

And Rainbow, just another fact, despite some researchers assuring males that one day they might carry a pregnancy, again, this is doubtful. Because a male body is simply not programmed to be able to carry that child. There is so much more to pregnancy than a foetus in a womb.

and I repeat. That you have NO idea about this is most likely that YOU have never carried a foetus in your life.

It is remarkable, really remarkable how ignorant males of all genders can be about pregnancy.

Yep because that's how that works. Just stick one in and away you go.

[quote RainbowBridge67]@Hasselhoffsheadband

I simply rejected your premise. You suggested reproductive function and ability to get pregnant is inherent and inseparable from womanhood. I disagree.[/quote]
Can males get pregnant then?

Did you come out of a woman? Did I? Did every single person on this planet?

ok you had us going @RainbowBridge67 but come on now, no one is falling for it now

yes.. plug and play uterus.

That is all that some posters think.

No only that. But they never think about the cocktail of synthetic drugs that a male must then also take or have directly injected into the umbilical cord to ensure that the foetus grows and remains viable. And NEVER ONCE have I ever seen a male acknowledge the impact that this would have on a foetus. It is all about them. every. single. fucking. time.

Never once have I seen one of these posters acknowledge that females are constantly told and directed what to avoid in pregnancy, don't even take this over the counter drug, don't eat bloomy or blue cheeses, don't drink alcohol.... yet they think it is ABSOLUTELY their RIGHT to feed a foetus a FULL synthetic cocktail constantly throughout that foetuses life. Not just one chemical that addresses a condition that the mother has, a FULL cocktail. Because a male does not have have a female body with its processing ability.

Let’s also not forget that the project to successfully implant a uterus into a human male, and use it to gestate a pregnancy involves a level of exploitative, dangerous, potentially disastrous experimentation on a human foetus that would make Mengele blush.

Women shouldn’t eat soft cheese or drink in pregnancy. But the sheer amount of medication, intervention, suppression, enhancement and tinkering with every single life sustaining system that would be needed to be done to have a baby be born from a MTF transsexual person would leave that sort of advice in the dust. It’s sociopathic to imagine subjecting a human foetus to that. I can’t conceive of a mind who would support such a thing.

I've been thinking more about rainbows aggressive insistence that woman is an identity and that if we say we're women we are talking about our identity. That's not the definition most people use but interestingly, the trans lobby don't advertise their new definition. They just, under the radar, pretend that this is a shared definition.

My theory is that some people are so struggling with not being what they want to be that they need to define the thing they want to be as something they can become.

I.e. they don't want to advertise that 'woman' is 'now an identity' as this means most people formerly called women, now largely aren't women. And that, in turn, means that there is no way for transwomen to 'be like other women'. So they have to mute the 'fact' that 'woman is an identity' in order to continue the pretense of commonality.

I wonder if this is why there is such aggressive pushing of the cis slur? For some it is just to painful to hear that women don't identify as women?

Not sure if that ramble made sense!

Well, despite one of our most regular TRA lurkers posting several screenshots from early in this thread on Twitter, I highly doubt a full link to this thread will be appearing there any time soon

But what is a woman?

Hasselhoffsheadband

You think that twitter does not want to see someone saying the quiet bits out loud?

Oh. We are ignoring the Swyer Syndrome error... ok then

To say "I am a woman" is to identify as a woman, making "woman" your identity.

Could I say 'I am black' and therefore make 'black' my identity?

Even though it would be clear as day to anyone who met me immediately, and even more clear once I told them about my heritage, that I am categorically not black?

@RainbowBridge68 To say "I am a woman" is to identify as a woman, making "woman" your identity.

And what exactly does it mean for you? What is the difference between being a woman and a man (in your definition)?

To say "I am a woman" is to identify as a woman, making "woman" your identity.

Aaaaand the thread comes full circle and we arrive at that rather fundamental question that, in several years of debating this issue I have never seen an answer to from a TRA:

What is a woman?

Why would a farmer get a bull to inseminate their cows. What would be the point if the bull was unable to impregnate the cow there would be no calves. DNA testing sites can not be fooled either. People are male and female it is biology and nature rules the universe. Nothing against anyone dressing or doing what they like, but the xx xy is science.

It does feel like there is a lot of aggression aimed at ensuring women define themselves in ways which men can appropriate. Strangely it's the pillow-fighting, make up, and general girliness people want to appropriate not the drudgery and lower pay. All the more galling given that pillow-fighting, make-up and general girliness is a small to non-existent aspect of most women's lives.

Like this

What's that from littlebrowndog?

Hi all, we're just posting to remind you of our Talk Guidelines, particularly the part around civil debate and sweeping negative generaliastions. www.mumsnet.com/i/trans-rights-moderation-policy

We will remove posts which we feel are breaking these guidelines. Thanks, and please do bear our guidelines in mind when posting.

In fact, Rainbow, maybe you knew this, BUT a woman who has been pregnant with a male foetus has some of that male's dna in their body until the day they die.

So, no one is saying anything about females only ever having 'female' dna when they can in fact carry this remnant with them.

However, their own female dna is encoded in every relevant cell in their body. And if not artificially suppressed or inactive due to a medical condition or had a body part relevant to the process removed, that coding with continue to attempt to do its coding.

@Whatiswrongwithmyknee

Does anyone hold out any hope for me getting an answer regarding what I have in common with a transwoman than I don't with a man?

Seems surprisingly hard to answer given that wombat believes we should retain sex segregated spaces so long as men can get into the womens if they want.

Apologies that real life circumstances meant I was unable to answer you question as immediately as you would have liked. Assuming that upon querying your gender identity, you replied ‘agender’ or whatever, then if prisons were to be segregated by gender, you would not be with a trans woman. At no point did I state what prisons would be segregated by - I was instead saying that it would be something alternative to the male/female sex binary as, given is this hypothetical scenario occurs under circumstances where a male/female sex divide is unviable, such a distinction would be impossible.

Instead segregation (assuming it even occurs) would be done by other factors - these could be biological, psychological, legal or anything else. Such a decision would be based on analysis I have not done that takes into account prisoner safety, well-being, cost effectiveness, practicalities of distinction, and many other categories. Your assumption that you would share a cell with a trans woman is in no way guaranteed by any of this - nowhere did I state this. The only thing I can be certain of is that if this scenario occurs under circumstances where the male/female sex divide is impossible, then by nature, segregation cannot be done using the male/female sex divide - biological traits, psychology and everything else would still play a part in the decision.

Next time, I hope you will bear in mind that it is not always possible for users of this site to post a reply on demand for other users