Ah, but didn't you know, we have to categorise "woman" nowadays, breaking her down into a series of distinct "groups" like "lesbian", "black", "disabled" etc., because
...to say that "woman" is the word for half the global population would be reductive and simplistic, wrongly defining women by their superficial physical traits Oh. Right. Yeah. Ignore this. It doesn't quite work, does it... Er...
OK, so, it's because
...we no longer need a word for the female 51% of humanity because they're in no way oppressed due to their biology I mean, pregnancy isn't just a female thing, is it? Or FGM. Or abortion... Er... No, hang on, scrap that, I don't quite mean that, what I mean is... Well, what I mean is... We don't need a word for the group of people who experience those things, do we, because... Er... Well...
So. Moving on. It's actually because...
It shows genuine respect for all the different types of women above to picture them in promotional campaigns (you'll know the one I mean) alongside male women - you may think this "others" women who are "lesbian", "black", "disabled", presenting them as distinct from normative able-bodied white females, but actually this deepens our understanding of what a woman is, because... OK, no. I can, actually, see how what I just said may be just a bit offensive, and that campaign could be distressing to some people. I mean, to place lesbian, black & disabled women alongside males simply to justify the males' inclusion in the female sex class! Heck. That's just... I mean... Wow. Sinking in!
So. What I mean is... Yes! We need all these reductive descriptors of different kinds of women because
Woman's become a really complicated thing to express, because it includes all these different groups, including men, so we need to explain it in detail - and, meanwhile, inclusive phrases like "vagina-owners" or "cervix-havers" aren't understood by certain distinct and oppressed demographics, like, you know, "uneducated women" and "foreign women", and... Hm. OK. Er... that doesn't come across too well either, does it, actually?
(Plus, I think I'm getting myself a bit confused.)
You know what, fuck it.
It's not because I care about women.
It's because breaking "women" down in this way is the only way to include trans-identifying males in their category, and to justify taking their word.
(And you know what? This approach to defining woman is entirely compatible with the definition of man, too! Because, after all, what is it that's defined "man" throughout human history? It's having the arrogance and the power to tell a woman precisely what she is and insist she accepts that).
You see? It all makes sense now, doesn't it? There's an internal logical consistency, after all.
Er...