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?

” I am entirely open to either argument”

Are you, aye?

@Wombat2WombatCombat Upon learning it was possible there may not be one, I made the relevant connections to note that this would undermine any attempts at determining ‘true womanhood’ on the basis of sex.

The dictionaries define woman as adult female and man as adult male.

Females have ovaries and produce eggs, and males have testes and produce sperm. In mammals, females typically have XX chromosomes and males typically have XY chromosomes.

Here you go.

@TheElementsSong

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

I think i can quite safely say

No

No I’m not

But thank you for asking

Upon learning it was possible there may not be one

Yet, strangely, until now, mammals, including humans, haven’t had any difficulties working out who is a man and who is a woman.

Anything can be a gender identity, that’s how gender works

To say that you do not believe in gender is to say that you do not believe in ‘opinions’, or ‘thought’, or any other abstract psychological concept. It does not cease to exist simply because you do not refer to it as such

No. This isn’t what is happening.

I don’t believe that “gender” can be substituted for “sex”, or override the physical reality of sex. I disagree that someone’s subjective inner state of gender identity is meaningful for anyone except them.

They are welcome to believe what they please about themselves, and that’s A-OK with me. I just can’t be compelled to agree, or to submit to a reorganisation of society that compels me to conform to that world view.

When you say ‘I am a woman’, you are altering your gender identity to that of a woman, but are not changing your sex.

Since when did you think you can take words like 'woman' and appropriate to mean whatever you fancy? Words have meaning, its how humans communicate.

The word 'woman' is taken I'm afraid, it means 'adult human female' and you can't have it. Sorry, not sorry.

I don’t believe that “gender” can be substituted for “sex”, or override the physical reality of sex. I disagree that someone’s subjective inner state of gender identity is meaningful for anyone except them.

yes. this

I guess if anything can be gender identity then we should just get rid of all definitions and stick to biological sexes, as it's much clearer

@littlbrowndog

I haven’t understood much of what wombat posts

he does seem to have taken my feedback regarding paragraphs on board to some extent

of course I long since decided that I won't be spending any of my time reading anything written by him

but pleased to see he's located the enter key. it's nice for a man to learn new skills

It’s all just semantic piffle. Meanderings through undergraduate philosophy. Witless sophistry.

Women exist.

Get over it.

@Sophoclesthefox

To say that you do not believe in gender is to say that you do not believe in ‘opinions’, or ‘thought’, or any other abstract psychological concept. It does not cease to exist simply because you do not refer to it as such

No. This isn’t what is happening.

I don’t believe that “gender” can be substituted for “sex”, or override the physical reality of sex. I disagree that someone’s subjective inner state of gender identity is meaningful for anyone except them.

They are welcome to believe what they please about themselves, and that’s A-OK with me. I just can’t be compelled to agree, or to submit to a reorganisation of society that compels me to conform to that world view.

Gender isn’t being substituted for sex in the way you are implying, and if it were to ‘override’ the physical reality it would be because that physical reality in the binary system you are describing it was unviable and could never properly be used in the first place

However, for you to argue that such a person is therefore not a woman in the biological sense, there would have to be a cast iron definition of what constitutes biological ‘womanhood’.

If I want to argue that you're not a teapot, do I first have to have a cast iron definition of teapots or would a china one do?

Because when you identify as a ‘woman’, the term ‘woman’ takes on an entirely separate meaning to the biological meaning of ‘woman’ (this is true regardless of whether you believe the biological definition is workable), in the same way that identifying as ‘black’ causes the word ‘black’ in that context to take on an entirely different meaning to the ‘black’ race

I am sure readers will very clearly see what this post indicates.

a) that any word can now mean whatever the person saying that word wants it to mean.

and

OP is stating that a 'woman' means whatever a male who identifies as a 'woman' wants it to mean and women don't get any say in it.

plus b) that a transitioned male who calls themselves a woman is not a woman in the same way as women. Surely that is transphobic?

@RitaJosephina

I guess if anything can be gender identity then we should just get rid of all definitions and stick to biological sexes, as it's much clearer

yes please

Because when you identify as a ‘woman’, the term ‘woman’ takes on an entirely separate meaning to the biological meaning of ‘woman’ (this is true regardless of whether you believe the biological definition is workable)

And what is the definition of a 'woman identity' vs biological definition of a woman? No one seems to be able to explain this.

Men have been trying to philosophise women out of existence for centuries.

Eppur si muove, chum.

"If I want to argue that you're not a teapot, do I first have to have a cast iron definition of teapots or would a china one do?"

Or a chocolate one. As in "this thread is as much use as a......."

physical reality in the binary system you are describing it was unviable and could never properly be used in the first place

Please give examples of when sex as we know it - male and female - was unviable as a description. Without politicising anyone's medical conditions.

@Hasselhoffsheadband

When you say ‘I am a woman’, you are altering your gender identity to that of a woman, but are not changing your sex.

Since when did you think you can take words like 'woman' and appropriate to mean whatever you fancy? Words have meaning, its how humans communicate.

The word 'woman' is taken I'm afraid, it means 'adult human female' and you can't have it. Sorry, not sorry.

When words have multiple meanings, they are called homonyms.

You may find this helpful: grammar.yourdictionary.com/for-students-and-parents/words-with-multiple-meanings.html

@Plasmodesmata

"If I want to argue that you're not a teapot, do I first have to have a cast iron definition of teapots or would a china one do?"

Or a chocolate one. As in "this thread is as much use as a......."

"......binary system you are describing it was unviable "

Tell that to the 8 BILLION people currently populating the planet.

Seems to be working so far.

Oh - and every single one of those people at some point had a MOTHER. Guess what biological sex they all were?

I am overwhelmed by the patience and good sense of Mumsnet’s feminists. Bombarded with silly questions, you keep responding courteously with facts and clarifications.

It’s not wasted, as others will read these pages and find a wealth of information. But you have more stamina than I would have.

Gender identities are not segueing into xenogenders which is interesting, but also emphasises how untethered from any biological reality gender actually is.

I mean, “catgender” is all very interesting and unique and valid and all, but no one believes humans can actually be cats