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?

@Whatsnewpussyhat

Funny how men are never confused about who is a woman is in real life.

Who to control, subject to FGM, which children to marry off to old men, which children to keep uneducated, who to traffic, who to rape, who to use when they need to produce a baby. Etc etc etc

It isn't complicated at all. No amount of waffle, trying to use sexual development disorders to pretend sex is now too complicated to define, will ever turn a man into a woman.

Take away the bullshit sexist stereotypes, and they have nothing.

There is no special genetic difference between a man and a man who claims to be a woman.

And this is all we need to come back to.

@Warmduscher

Why do you need to know, OP?

Don’t you think that if humans had all found it as perplexing as you clearly do, that we would have died out long ago as no-one would know which sex to mate with?

I’m replying to this post because it makes the point concisely, but this is meant to be in response to all of the (reasonable) points around observation.

The reason I brought up biological definitions rather than appearance is because it seems to me like in the modern age, appearance is much harder to judge. We seem to be moving away from gender/sex norms, which while I think we can all agree it is a good thing, does mean that we can no longer rely on things like ‘men wear trousers’ and ‘women wear skirts’ as ways of identifying people’s sex. With changing ways of dressing, ways of applying makeup, people who just happen to look ‘male’ even when they are female and vice versa, and of course transgender people (regardless of whether we agree with them, we need to factor in their existence) means that as far as I’m aware, observation is no longer a reliable way of distinguishing, even without factoring things like intersex people. Based on what I know about single sex spaces and their importance for protecting women (please correct me if I get something wrong), the last thing we would want to do is prevent women who need them from entering because they don’t look ‘female’ enough (that seems to be what feminism has been fighting against the past 100 years) or vice versa, hence why I was looking for an exact biological definition, that would be less open to mistakes

@Furries

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

At the time you observed this though, it was to be fair, quite (literally) early

[quote Wombat2WombatCombat]**@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[/quote]
An analogy; There’s no defining characteristic of when somebody is being intentionally obtuse, but I don’t need a Ph.D in dialectics to know it when I see it!

[quote Wombat2WombatCombat]**@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[/quote]
Actually, bipedalism is a defining feature of humans, as it's something we developed fully whereas our other primate cousins did not. The point in our evolution at which it developed, and why, is of great interest to palaentologists. The evolution of bipedalism combined with the large size of an infant's brain is related to pelvic morphology, something which a large number of users on a site named "mumsnet" are no dout aware of.

it seems to me like in the modern age, appearance is much harder to judge.

Um, on the internet with carefully posed touched up pictures, and avoiding getting other people in frame, maybe. But in real life?

Have you never seen a transwoman standing next to a transman? Which one is male and which one is female couldn't be more obvious...

I'd say the opposite is in fact true. The increased prevalence of people who've done some sort of cosmetic surgery and cross-sex hormones means that they're far more easily identified by more people, because they're more common.

We know what women who've taken male hormones look and sound like - the distinctive voice, the distinctive facial hair, the petite build...

Do you think the OP was one of the 80’s dads who went around saying of Boy George ‘can’t tell if that’s a boy or a girl’, when in actual fact despite 80s Boy George looking pleasingly ambiguous from a gender perspective, absolutely everyone could spot his sex from a mile away

OP seems easily confused

it seems to me like in the modern age, appearance is much harder to judge

What's that got to do with anything? Penises and vulvas and testicles and ovaries and Fallopian tubes still look the same as they did hundreds (thousands?) of years ago.

Appearance has fuck all to do with definitions of male and female?

does mean that we can no longer rely on things like ‘men wear trousers’ and ‘women wear skirts’ as ways of identifying people’s sex

Did we ever? At least when choosing a mate and knowing who's a threat?

Do you think the human race is about to die out because women wear trousers?

we can no longer rely on things like ‘men wear trousers’ and ‘women wear skirts’ as ways of identifying people’s sex.

Fuck me

Literally no one uses these things to identify a person’s sex

Are you ok OP?

The reason I brought up biological definitions rather than appearance is because it seems to me like in the modern age, appearance is much harder to judge. We seem to be moving away from gender/sex norms, which while I think we can all agree it is a good thing, does mean that we can no longer rely on things like ‘men wear trousers’ and ‘women wear skirts’ as ways of identifying people’s sex. With changing ways of dressing, ways of applying makeup, people who just happen to look ‘male’ even when they are female and vice versa, and of course transgender people (regardless of whether we agree with them, we need to factor in their existence) means that as far as I’m aware, observation is no longer a reliable way of distinguishing, even without factoring things like intersex people.

This is only a problem if you insist on using stereotyped dress and cosmetic norms as your sole means of judging between male and female. There are plenty of innate (biological) indicators of sex that don't involve testing someone's chromosomes or examining their genitals. Height, voice pitch, shoulder and hip width, breasts, facial hair, hand size, jaw shape. Gait is an excellent indicator - pelvis configuration is different in males and females and results in gait patterns that are distinctive even when most other physical features are obscured.

Based on what I know about single sex spaces and their importance for protecting women (please correct me if I get something wrong), the last thing we would want to do is prevent women who need them from entering because they don’t look ‘female’ enough

This is topsy-turvy thinking. If people entering a single-sex space can be confident that only members of one sex will be there, there is no need to police anyone's external appearance. Whether or not someone looks "female enough" ceases to be an issue if you can be certain that everyone present is in fact female.

the last thing we would want to do is prevent women who need them from entering because they don’t look ‘female’ enough (that seems to be what feminism has been fighting against the past 100 years) or vice versa, hence why I was looking for an exact biological definition, that would be less open to mistakes

So in addition to genital inspectors by toilet doors you want a DNA sequencer?

This is topsy-turvy thinking. If people entering a single-sex space can be confident that only members of one sex will be there, there is no need to police anyone's external appearance. Whether or not someone looks "female enough" ceases to be an issue if you can be certain that everyone present is in fact female.

But how can you get to the point where you are certain that everyone present is female in the first place?

Don't dismiss appearance, OP. On the issue of appearance, do you realise that young children can recognise the sex of the person approaching them by the way they walk? Male and female gait is different because of differences in the pelvis. Appearance often comes back to sex. Narrow pelvis/ wide shoulders = male. Wider pelvis/ narrower shoulders = female. Large hands and feet = male, smaller hands and feet = female.

Women have developed over millennia to be able to recognise very subtle differences in order to identify men, even if they are disguised. Women are more sensitive to reading body language generally than men are, for good evolutionary reasons.

@titchy

the last thing we would want to do is prevent women who need them from entering because they don’t look ‘female’ enough (that seems to be what feminism has been fighting against the past 100 years) or vice versa, hence why I was looking for an exact biological definition, that would be less open to mistakes

So in addition to genital inspectors by toilet doors you want a DNA sequencer?

Sorry, I’m a bit lost here. So we shouldn’t police single sex spaces?

But how can you get to the point where you are certain that everyone present is female in the first place?

You can if there is a basic presumption that males will respect female-only spaces and stay out of them.

Are you generally confused by easily established things OP?

‘But this ceramic receptacle doesn’t have a handle. Can it be considered to be a cup?’

I’m not sure the OP should be allowed out alone

Do your parents know where you are @Wombat2WombatCombat?

@Wombat2WombatCombat

This is topsy-turvy thinking. If people entering a single-sex space can be confident that only members of one sex will be there, there is no need to police anyone's external appearance. Whether or not someone looks "female enough" ceases to be an issue if you can be certain that everyone present is in fact female.

But how can you get to the point where you are certain that everyone present is female in the first place?

Women know.

It is a sad state of affairs that people now feel the need to 'police' single sex spaces. We shouldn't need to. It's a social contract. People know whether they are male or female. People with a DSD also know - and they are the only, tiny minority who, in the past, may have been assigned a sex and may not know what the biologically are.

Everyone else knows unequivocally whether they are male or female and should accept that some spaces are for them and some are not.

If people weren't trying to pretend to be the opposite sex, we wouldn't need to 'police' anything. We just agree, as a society, that this is right and proper and respect one another.

No one is expecting genital inspections or chromosome checks for single sex spaces. We just want an agreement that we stick to our own spaces. That's it.

@Wombat2WombatCombat

This is topsy-turvy thinking. If people entering a single-sex space can be confident that only members of one sex will be there, there is no need to police anyone's external appearance. Whether or not someone looks "female enough" ceases to be an issue if you can be certain that everyone present is in fact female.

But how can you get to the point where you are certain that everyone present is female in the first place?

Like with most social contracts, we rely on people in society to uphold them. The vast majority of people understand that they do not enter a property that does not belong to them and take items. Even if the door is wide open, that is not an invite to burgle a home.

We just have to go on good faith that penis havers understand that they must stay out of female spaces. Penis havers who do enter female single sex-spaces demonstrate that they do not respect female single-sex spaces, are entering them for their own gratification, and may mean to do harm or intimidate females.

It does not matter how the penis haver presents themselves - they may grow their hair long, dress in their idea of how a woman dresses, etc - as long as they are a current or former haver of a penis, they should use the facility that aligns with their sex.

If we spend all this time arguing about what is a woman we don't have time to talk about women's rights. A very clever trick.

OP if you don't know what a woman is ask your mum. HTH

OP, animals are dimorphic to reproduce. The two forms need to be able to produce gametes that fuse to produce a new single cell with the potential to divide, implant in the mother's womb and grow. This is as it has always been, will always be, with body forms distinct to the human eye.

We didn't previously join in a big fat lie, make-up that the differences were there, and that truly we are all mixed and biology was made up.

If you truly believe that biology does not exist and you cannot see that women are XX adult human females and men XY adult human males, I wonder what you are doing to be able to not see?

It must take an incredible effort to ignore what we've all always known.