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?

@Helleofabore

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.

Would you be willing to elaborate on what you mean by ‘politicising someone’s conditions’? If you mean using a condition as an example, then almost all of science would be guilty of that

women does not have multiple meanings. It very clearly is Adult human female.

When words have multiple meanings, they are called homonyms.

OK....so if one definition of 'woman' is 'adult human female' what is another? What is a woman?

I'm still waiting for the definition of 'woman identity', most of homonyms have clear definitions, but there seems to be such a problem with this simple word.

*now,

Would you be willing to elaborate on what you mean by ‘politicising someone’s conditions’? If you mean using a condition as an example, then almost all of science would be guilty of that

I quite clearly mean that you should stop using people with DSD's to further your agenda of destabilising the sex categories.

I lurked, I stopped reading @Wombat2WombatCombat post because they became less and less understandable and I decided to identify as a petite, skinny redhead now. Or sometimes as a dog(in a good home), because I need to sleep 18 hours.
Thank you, wise women of mumsnet, for an highly interesting, intelligent, patient and unbelievably polite read.

We all know what women are.

We all came out of one.

The simplest explanation, the most economic one, is usually the best.

If you have to be as obscure as Judith Butler, you’ve as good as admitted you don’t have any actual substance to bring.

“catgender”

Well that then forces the meaning of the word 'cat' open to include humans now.

Thank you, wise women of mumsnet, for an highly interesting, intelligent, patient and unbelievably polite read.

Seconded!

I am quite excited about this new possibility to change the meaning of a word.

I think I identify as a manager. I am good at manage my children. Manager also happens to be work description. Now I need to convince my employer that my thoughts are valid so they give me a pay rise 👍

Can someone put this thread out of its misery and give it a decent burial now, please?

The basis on which Sophocles seems to object to the concept of a trans person giving birth is the potential damage it could do to to a foetus. Abortion would also do significant damage to a foetus - arguably more so, as the foetus would be guaranteed to be killed. Therefore, I was asking if they objected to abortion as well on that basis

Please continue to clarify what you intend to mean here.

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

Sorry, I am struggling to follow you; are you saying that the former reframing of language is ok, but the latter, not? Why is that, in your opinion? Or have I misunderstood your point?

I am assuming that Rainbow is no longer able to answer any questions about why they supposed repeatedly posting an article about a person with Swyer Syndrome was acceptable at all.

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

— 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

Very clever, OP. Now, it’s way past your bedtime.

Because when you identify as a ‘woman’, the term ‘woman’ takes on an entirely separate meaning to the biological meaning of ‘woman’

What utter nonsense.
The word woman only means adult human female.
Nothing else. No special feelings in a man's head can change sexed reality.
They are naturally excluded from our sex class.

Pretending they can change sex by claiming words and reality now mean different things to suit their desires doesn't actually change a thing does it?

No male can ever be a woman.

@Sophoclesthefox

Can someone put this thread out of its misery and give it a decent burial now, please?

yes please.

I work with a lot of really quite dangerous and scary pathogens, I could rename or redefine them and they would still be just as dangerous and scary.

I'm not going to bother catching up on all the threads I missed. But the latest are corkers.

The reason I started the thread was because I wished to learn what the biological definition of a man or woman was. Upon learning it was possible there may not be one

Ladies we have someone so thick in our midst that the differences between sperm and ovum did not register with this individual. Either that or they believe gametes are not biological. Either way the earth is flat. And the sun is rotating in the ether because there is no tangible evidence to the contrary.

I made the relevant connections to note that this would undermine any attempts at determining ‘true womanhood’ on the basis of sex.
And the two neurones knocking around in there say 2 + 2 =5. The ministry of truth has spoken. Womanhood needs wombat to ensure determinism. Pity wombat is deceitful.

I see I missed nothing.

Keep going wombat!
I applaud your efforts. Very determined to not understand and doing a better job at it than toddlers.

I missed that about identifying as black. I personally find blackface really offensive. Is anyone here defending that?

Wombat defends everything.

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

Genuinely think an argument about the definition of teapots could have been more productive.

Are chocolate teapots teapots?

Do we need to have a "cast iron definition" for teapots to argue that there isn't one currently orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars?

When children sing the song "I'm a little teapot" are they identifying as teapots and therefore actual teapots because saying the words means that you are it, and literally anything can be a gender and thinking OP is talking bollocks is denying the very existence of thought itself or some shit?

@Helleofabore

The basis on which Sophocles seems to object to the concept of a trans person giving birth is the potential damage it could do to to a foetus. Abortion would also do significant damage to a foetus - arguably more so, as the foetus would be guaranteed to be killed. Therefore, I was asking if they objected to abortion as well on that basis

Please continue to clarify what you intend to mean here.

Quite. Apart from anything else, the disgraceful erasure of trans men who have given birth that is Implied by wombats post is to be deplored and requires further explanation.

Ladies we have someone so thick in our midst that the differences between sperm and ovum did not register with this individual.

No, they believe that scientific and medical text definitions that have been stable for decades are not up to their standard of rigour. Not that they have ever provided anything that improves on these.