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?

the only type expected to sit quietly and listen while we redefine it away,

That's one of the main things to note - how incredibly directed this performative obtuseness is. It's directed very specifically at women.

I wish I knew someone like OP in real life just so I could play the game back at them. Could have endless fun failing to understand their explanation of why their food wasn't cooked, or clothes weren't clean, or why the present I'd got them was wrong...

How is everyone managing to be so patient! Hats off to you!

I work in a school and despite it being winter, with pupils wearing masks, hats/hoods up, huge puffy jackets and the same trainers, I can still tell at a glance the sex of nearly every pupil. How do you think I can tell? And if I can manage that with identikit clothing & face masks, do you think most people would struggle to identify people by their selections in a toilet?

Sorry if I seem like I’m being obtuse

Really?

You don't "seem like", you are very obviously being wilfully obtuse.

If two different people visited a fertility specialist and reported that they had been trying to get pregnant for a year with no success, one has a penis and one has a vagina; which one will be referred for further investigation into infertility and which one should be referred for mental health input?

Sex, not selections!

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.

I found the dismissal of humans being bipedal was very reminiscent of the twitter tra tactics. That is a clanger in a bingo game.

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

This.

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

Yes we do. Humans are absolutely described as bipedal.

HTH.

We have no problem telling a dog from a bitch, mare from stallion, heifer from bull. Let’s not over complicate it, females bear offspring or produce eggs.

@Igneococcus

‘Tis soooo haaaarrddf how can we teeellll something something butch lesbians’

Or female athletes, because as Cartimandua over in the Times comments repeats relentlessly, female athletes are indistinguishable from men and will have their genitals checked in future if we evil women get out way.

In future? The original Greek Olympics competed in the nude. But just looked up UKAD antidoping procedure:

"The DCO, who will be of the same gender as you, will observe you providing a sample. You will be asked to remove/lift clothing above your chest and below your knees so the DCO has an unobstructed view"

@RVN123

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.

Brilliant thread! I especially liked this ^

Finally, I'd point out to any lurkers that none of these obfuscatory-nit-picking-false-pedantry-look-at-these-squirrels-types would actually be confused by the "mobility" of ova, when it comes to choosing which emergence from the cloaca of a Gallus gallus domesticus they wish to have with their fried breakfast.

Indeed

@Awiltu

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.

It must be a constant surprise when posters have to refute that one.

So… a male who has been told by females that they are uncomfortable with any male of any gender in their single sex space has so little respect for other’s needs that they will continue to enter those spaces?

Gosh!!! Is that what some posters are saying will happen? That males simply don’t have respect for females.

Yes we do. Humans are absolutely described as bipedal.

Does OP think any baby born might just as easily have 3 or 4 legs?

we don’t use being bipedal as a defining characteristic of being human as far as I’m aware

being human is going to boil down to an essence of consciousness soon. we'll be in competition with the octopuses. "nothing can define us" as said in song lyrics should not be taken this literally.

Humans have bodies and those bodies have defining characteristics and that is OK!!! There are variations, accidents, and full on mishaps with some of those bodies. that does not stop us being able to identify the defining characteristics of the human body.

Why does this feel like a primary school lesson? do we need to start singing "head, shoulders, knees and toes" to adults too to remind them they would usually have these bits even if they have been lobbed off, smashed falling off their bikes, painted over or even born without?

The people who keep claiming the hurt and pain of being questioned seem very much determined that this is to be taken as a personal attack

The only lesbian I’ve come across who claimed to find it so, and wrote a couple of articles on it, claiming it happened about one third of the time she used public toilets, was high up in Stonewall.

Another of those amazing coincidences that are almost unnoticeable. It was especially fascinating, given that even in photos, her sex was obvious.

I think its good to remember that any categories in biology have exceptions, and the exceptions don't make the categories invalid. Human sex is one of the most clear cut binary categories there is, and yet of course there are exceptions. Just as we would use having two legs as a requirement of being human, we would also expect to see some humans born without (or having lost) one leg. That doesn't make them not-human, nor does it invalidate the category of "human".

@NecessaryScene

the only type expected to sit quietly and listen while we redefine it away,

That's one of the main things to note - how incredibly directed this performative obtuseness is. It's directed very specifically at women.

I wish I knew someone like OP in real life just so I could play the game back at them. Could have endless fun failing to understand their explanation of why their food wasn't cooked, or clothes weren't clean, or why the present I'd got them was wrong...

I wonder if the OP would profess the same wide-eyed wonderment at the impenetrable mysteries of differentiating arse from elbow?

@Tiphaine

Sorry if I seem like I’m being obtuse

You don't seem like you're being obtuse. You seem like you're pretending to be obtuse. Performative obtusity is a feature of conversations with people who are adherent of a particular pseudo-religious ideology.

One of the people pictured is male and one is female. Most people will be able to see which is which. Babies can tell women from men. Dogs can tell women from men. However, a certain type of person living in a certain cultural epoch claims not to be able to do it. Almost always white, hyper privileged people living in western societies. Utter bourgeois piffle.

Crikey that second pic

My bingo card is nearly complete. Not quite though.
(waiting for Nemo).

So I would like to know whether OP has any examples of anything created either biologically or by human manufacturing on earth that is 100% accurate 100% of the time.

May I ask why OP expects anything on this planet to fit the design (natural or manufactured) accurately 100%.

And if so, when did the majority of humans decide that was ok.

Because you are asking for a definition that seems like it will never be enough to suit whatever your purpose is.

Your continued use of those with differences in sex development to attempt to force open the sex category is as offensive as those who use women’s medical conditions around fertility as a political tool.

There are so few numbers of people who have incredibly complex medical issues that cannot be identified with modern technology as male or female. Rather than having empathy for their situation, they are used. Shamefully used.

@Helleofabore

Is this the bingo session it seemed destined to be then?

I got a full house about 10 pages ago.

@youvegottenminuteslynn

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

Yes we do. Humans are absolutely described as bipedal.

HTH.

Since at least Plato (and Diogenes and his dead chicken.)

I just don't get the wails of 'But I don't understaaaaand!'

The pigeons I saw shagging in a tree the other day sure as hell understand it.
Pigeons.
Let that sink in.

I think the argument about being unable to tell TW and TM from W and M is typically mooted by males. It has been shown in tests that males are much poorer at identifying sex from pictures than women are, perhaps they do rely on the stereotypical secondary characteristics and dress more than women do.

Genetically it is far more important for women to be able to identify the difference between sexes as males have throughout history been a significant risk factor to women. The same doesn't apply in reverse.

So perhaps a male person posing the how can you tell question is not so much obtuse as genuinely unaware that the majority of women can tell sex irrespective of outward expression of stereotypes

I know the thread has moved on considerably since then but I did roll my eyes laugh at this

"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."

When DS was two years old, he would point at people and ask "Is that a man?" or "is that a lady?". (I'll set aside how interesting it is that a child wants to know that information.) And every time he asked, it was because a gender 'marker' was going against the then-current 'norm'. A woman in trousers, a man wearing long hair / earrings - those were the people he asked me to confirm. He never asked whether a woman with earrings was a lady etc.

So at just two years old, my son could tell the sex of adults. He was also aware of gendered appearance and never queried if sex and clothing 'matched'. After a couple of months he stopped asking, because he by then had sorted out for himself that the clothes worn had no effect on the sex of the person.

And that's why I find the you-can-never-tell-the-sex-of-a-stranger such a ridiculous claim. Small children can do it. IIRC there's research that confirms non-verbal babies can tell. So an adult claiming you cannot, I will always assume is lying being disingenuous for unknown purposes.