I’ve gone over ~30 pages of the thread. People here have made some good points (e.g. Emily’s Cat); my apologies if I reiterate some of these. I think I bring a slightly different perspective than what I’ve seen here: I have a long background as an academic biologist (~21 years post PhD) with research foci in genetics/epigenetics, developmental/repro bio and comparative/ evolutionary bio + teaching in those areas. I moved to clinical genetics several years ago.
For definitional purposes, I’m going to start with the traditional definition of woman = adult human female. I had not thought much about these issues until earlier this year when the JKR controversy erupted. I was disturbed to see people on Twitter referring to sex as a spectrum and/or mutable within an individual, often in concert with the TWAW mantra. These folks often pointing to opinion pieces in Nature and Scientific American to justify these beliefs. Diving into it, I saw that people were conflating primary sex with sex development/secondary characteristics as well as sexuality and sexual identity.
I (foolishly) tried to point this out to some and came to realize that many were not interested in a discussion but apparently just to ‘pwn’ the TERFs and what they believe to be bigots. While there were certainly some of the latter (typically right-wing), there also appeared to be plenty of people with well-reasoned positions - Specifically a lot frustrated/angry women (I noted the prominent presence of lesbians - who seem to be particular target of trans-activist vitriol - and anti-female genital mutilation activists).
Among the oft repeated claims was that ‘female’ can’t be rigorously defined - the unspoken argument often being that if they could find a single exception to the definition I was using, then anyone could be female. I saw a well-put rejoinder on medium entitled An Open Letter to the Guy on Twitter Who Wonders if Biological Sex is Real (the gist being that these claims are disingenuous).
Most these folks are missing the bigger picture: Sex is originally and fundamentally about reproduction. Moreover, there is an obligate binary in mammalian reproduction: one oocyte and one sperm are required for normal development. It’s accepted that sex is the preferred mode of reproduction due to its ability to generate genetic diversity via novel allelic combinations.
I (& many other biologists) define the two reproductive classes that produce these two gamete types as the (only) two sexes. Note that this definition works across species, which is necessary to understand biology in a comparative and historical framework. This definition also makes extrapolation from other species to humans possible. For example, the identification of the SRY locus that triggers mammalian male development was discovered via pain-staking experiments in lab mice, and can illuminate sex differences in other areas where human experiments are not feasible.
There is overwhelming evidence that the process of human development into two sexes is homologous with the process that occurs in all other mammals. I bring this up to make the point that if one wishes to change the definition of what constitutes one of these classes in humans without extending it to other mammals, it is by definition special pleading.
Unfortunately, I think denial of the biology is real, and not a fringe position any more - e.g. the prominent ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio saying: "biological sex" was developed for the exclusive purpose of being weaponized against people. Some of the trans-activists do a ‘motte and bailey’ on this, but it seems to me to be an intensifying pattern to claim that biological sex is fuzzy/can be changed/unimportant (see the dubious phrase: sex ‘assigned’ at birth).
The bigger point that seems to me to be ignored is why females have been nearly ubiquitously oppressed: Females are the limiting factor in mammalian reproduction. They produce far fewer gametes and bear nearly all of the reproductive costs, including all of the prenatal expenditure (where embryos develop essentially as parasites). Evolutionary theory would suggest this is why males try to control female bodies and maximize female expenditure for their own offspring (see work on this by noted theorists Bob Trivers, David Haig, WD Hamilton et al.). For aficionados - the genes I studied for many years - so-called imprinted genes - are thought to have had their unique expression patterns emerge as a direct result of these parental conflicts.
Note that if females are relatively plentiful, it makes sense (short term) to have more male offspring to maximize reproductive fitness. I (not uniquely) think this is a likely hypothesis as to why sex-selective abortion, infanticide and neglect have led to ~100 million ‘missing women’ across Asia. Regardless, I agree with the many women who suggest that these large biological disparities in energy expenditure/commitment related to reproduction are intrinsic to their treatment. In fact, the only other group I can think of that likely will face intrinsic unfair treatment due to evolutionary pressures are certain groups of the disabled.
I understand that words may change meaning. However, changing the definition of word with a precise definition (women) that applies to the largest oppressed class of people (females) to a circular version against the wishes of those already involved seems ill-advised. I’d like a future where we try harder (worldwide) to equalize treatment of females (acknowledging intrinsic the female-male behavioral differences that lead to rape and violence by the latter) and reduce gender stereotypes/expectations.
I feel they (females) should have their own spaces, sports, and that positions should be set aside in areas where they are under-represented. To be clear, we (obviously) should not discriminate against anyone, but reconciling that with the push of (some) trans-activists that trans-women should be considered as identical to adult human females will be difficult. I hope there will be a more wide-spread nuanced discussion - changing the current tenor seems a prerequisite for such talks.
PS - as I was typing I this I see the focus shifting to sexual selection, which I agree is key.
