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?

If you'd know who to ask to be a surrogate then you already know the difference between a man and a woman.

Go and visit a maternity ward.
100% of the patients in there will have something in common.
Go and visit a prostate cancer ward. 100% of the patients in there will have something in common.

It really isn't as complicated as people like to make out.
Before we even knew what DNA or chromosomes were, people seemed to manage to find other people to mate with and procreate.
As they will still be doing in 10'000 years time.

"there’s a lot if complexity with this sort of thing and I’m trying to understand how it all fits in"

It really isn't complicated at all.

Pretty sure if any single one of us was standing in a room with any other human, we would know what sex they were, especially once we hear the voice and observe hands, back of legs, neck...
Once we sense the pheromones.

Photos can be altered so they are no evidence of anyone "passing"

OP, are you seriously saying you don't understand the difference between men and women?

All I can offer is the fact that people on this board are really rather patient.

@BewitchedBotheredandBewildered

It's just occurred to me that I wonder if much of this problem boils down to some people not liking the fact that their gametes are referred to as small, even if mobile, and other peoples' gametes are referred to as large, even if immobile?

After all, to some people, size really matters.

You might be right. I thought we were in a real life version of tiktok in which pronouns are the "like" button. The more you use them, the more the owner gets that warm fuzzy feeling of external validation. Not liking someone's post is leading to existential crises and questioning of all of life itself. You don't have to dislike the post for this reaction. Just don't set your own pronouns scroll past to trigger chaos in a mind hyper fixated on external validation.

@Wombat2WombatCombat

Before I respond to anything individually, I just want to apologise if I have caused anyone any offence. I am aware of the importance of single sex spaces, but recently I have learnt about all of the various intersex conditions, and wanted to know how they fit into everything. Sorry again if it seemed like something else

”Before I respond to anything individually”

Fails to do so in any meaningful way, then throws in another “naive”question for good measure.

Still, at least we haven’t been told we are bearded harridans yet!

@Wombat2WombatCombat

If I’m understanding everyone correctly, it sounds like it isn’t so much of a case of there being clear cut biological conditions, so much as it is that the numbers of outliers are too small to be worth considering? Please correct me if I’m wrong as I don’t want to misrepresent anyone’s point

I think it helps to conceptualise biology as messy. For many situations in biology, there are principles, and then there are cases that violate those principles.

I think it's harsh to describe the outliers as too small to be worth considering, in as much as people with intersex conditions are people, and what sex they are matters, but their existence doesn't mean we need to rewrite the definition. It's a definition, with exceptions. From a scientific perspective, the exceptions matter a lot as they help scientists to understand the principles.

I can’t believe this has become a serious question.

Has anyone ever confused their crawling baby with their dog because they both move around on four limbs? Do we need a phenotype test to distinguish between them?

The human body has 11 or 12 (depending on how you classify them) organ systems. An organ system is a collection of distinct body structures which all work together to support the same general function. Normal development of all but one of these organs systems results in the same basic anatomical configuration in all humans.

One of these organ systems, the reproductive system, is dimorphic – that is, normal development produces 2 structurally and functionally distinct forms of this organ system. These forms are designated male and female.

Our DNA provides a blueprint or set of instructions for development of all the structures in the human body, including the reproductive system. The reproductive system has several basic components which take on different forms in the male and female systems:

• Gonads – ovaries (female) vs testes (male). These are the organs that produce gametes or reproductive cells - ova (large, not self-mobile) in females, spermatozoa (small, self-mobile) in males
• Organs supporting gamete transport from gonads – Fallopian tubes or salpinges (female) vs epididymis and vas deferens (male)
• Organs making substances that support healthy gamete function – seminal vesicles and prostate making components of semen (male)
• Organs that support gamete delivery for fertilisation – vagina and cervix (female) vs penis (male)
• Organs that support gestation and delivery (females only) – uterus, cervix, vagina (plus ovaries for hormonal production and a temporary organ, the placenta, for vascular/nutritional support)

Normal execution of the complex developmental pathway that results in these distinct sets of internal reproductive system organs also produces 2 distinct configuration of external reproductive structures (external genitalia). Normal development of a male-pattern reproductive system is linked with a specific sequence of genetic material (the SRY gene) which is typically located on the Y chromosome.

Therefore, in the absence of disordered development of this pathway – i.e. in the overwhelming majority of humans – the configuration of the external genitalia is a reliable indicator of the configuration of the internal reproductive system, and the presence of absence of a Y chromosome in the karyotype (chromosome profile) is also a reliable indicator of the configuration of the reproductive system.

In disorders or differences of sexual development, this complex pathway doesn’t proceed in the way that would be expected from the simple criterion of the presence or absence of a Y chromosome. So there is a mismatch between genetic makeup and the configuration of the internal and/or external reproductive system structures. People with DSDs are still male or female; in fact many types of DSD are sex-specific and only occur in either males or females. There is no third sex and no third gamete.

The anatomical structures that develop in utero as the cardinal features of female and male reproductive systems are the primary sexual characteristics Secondary sexual characteristics are the changes in existing anatomical structures that occur as sexual maturity develops during puberty. A man is an sexually mature human whose natural reproductive system conforms most closely to a male phenotype, and a woman is a sexually mature human whose natural reproductive system configuration conforms most closely to a female phenotype.

In practice, everyone knows exactly – and in explicit biological terms - what a man is and what a woman is.
No parent takes a 16-year-old child with a penis and testicles to the GP to investigate why they haven’t started menstruating.
No-one planning a family in a heterosexual relationship thinks that both partners need an ultrasound to work out which of them will be the one to take maternity leave.

Just because we can’t easily a natural phenomenon according to a single black-and-white criterion doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, or that we don’t apply our knowledge of it at a practical level on an everyday basis.

Physicists can’t agree on the fundamentals of whether light is a wave or a particle. Doesn’t stop us knowing that turning on an electric lamp will illuminate a dark room.

Thank you, Awitu, great post.

If we really have to...

People with these differences are extremely fed up of being used to debate who they are or aren't. Have their differences analysed and used for political gain.

Inclusion in lgbtq charities has taken real life support away from them; many have physical or cognitive health conditions as well as infertility and they need actual support.

The below is very rare. It's v straightforward for everyone else.

You've had some great, clear answers now OP.

Maybe you can help me with something now. What is the difference between a male, nonbinary, and female gender identity? How can one tell which one one has?

I occassionally have work related contact with people who run animal trials where sex matters (dairy cows, laying hens) and I have never ever, in all the years I have been doing this, met anyone (biologists, vets, farmers) who would have even the tiniest bit of doubt about how to define sex.

Great post Awiltu. Very comprehensive.

As a previous poster noted, just because it's complex doesn't mean it should be unintelligible.

But I think, for some people, unless it can be used as a gotcha, or soundbite, it might as well be unintelligible. The actual explanation isn't the thing, it's whether or not it can be used to argue the point - largely against women's boundaries.

Fails to do so in any meaningful way, then throws in another “naive”question for good measure.

A "naive" question that purposefully mis-states what posters have said.

The actual explanation isn't the thing, it's whether or not it can be used to argue the point - largely against women's boundaries.

YY.

Sorry for the lack of replies - it was getting late and I needed to call it a night. I will do my best to respond to give my thoughts on some of the points you’ve raised, however you guys have been very active, which while helpful, also makes it hard to keep track of everything

@youvegottenminuteslynn Can you understand this OP? I don't mean that in a patronising way but this is what it comes down to.

This is the bit I still don’t get. To use your example, yes humans are almost always bipedal, but some aren’t, and we don’t use being bipedal as a defining characteristic of being human as far as I’m aware - to my knowledge that is more based on genetics and DNA (assuming there even is a defined criterion for being human). So while I get there are always anomalies, I am struggling to see how your example applies here as it isn’t a defining trait - what I’m looking for is the sex equivalent of humans always having this sort of DNA or whatever, rather then the sex equivalent of being bipedal, which I think we are all aware of

What is the difference between "typically, humans are bipedal but there are exceptions" and "typically, woman have XX chromosomes but there are exceptions" ?

Before kids were being indoctrinated in the latest gender woo woo, (maybe the last 5 years or so) even nursery school aged children knew what a man was and what a woman was and would be able to tell you that ladies have the babies and are the Mummies, men are the Daddies, and confidently be able to pick out the men and women in the room.

Nothing has actually changed, there are a lot more made up terms and words now, but it hasn't changed the actual facts.
If a pre-schooler can figure out this crap, I'm really not sure what all the hand-wringing and naval gazing is about.

To be honest I think a lot of people (not necessarily OP although I'm not sure this is a good faith thread) have far too much time on their hands. Maybe its boredom.

If I’m understanding everyone correctly, it sounds like it isn’t so much of a case of there being clear cut biological conditions, so much as it is that the numbers of outliers are too small to be worth considering?

The way you've framed this makes me question whether you are posting in good faith.

The "outliers" are the exceptions which prove rather than disprove the rule. They need special consideration rather than no consideration; we should not allow the specific issues faced by people with DSD's to be appropriated in service of another unrelated cause because that really is giving them no consideration at all.

To make it easy OP, 99% of men have XY chromosomes. 99% of women have XX chromosomes. Possibly even more given that DSDs equate to 0.018% of the population.
The other chromosomal conditions can be read about but you are unlikely ever to encounter anyone with them.

This system has worked well for us since we knew chromosomes existed.
We really aren't trying to redefine biology here or reinvent the wheel.

what I’m looking for is the sex equivalent of humans always having this sort of DNA or whatever

OP, it doesn't work like that with a complex developmental pathway. Multiple processes, controlled by multiple genes, all have to turn on and off properly, and at the right time- point in the developmental pathway, to end up with a typically formed anatomical configuration.

There is no single defining criterion because the whole cascade of events has to work perfectly to achieve the end result.

It' much more akin to a complex electrical circuit. You can't put your finger on one point in the circuit and say "Right, this circuit works because of this specific bit here" - there are many components that contribute to the final output of the system.

@Furries

All I can offer is the fact that people on this board are really rather patient.

This