The traditional definition, "adult human female", works perfectly well. There was another poster who was hung up on "female" requiring current production of eggs, but that was a stupid and nonsensical position which, thankfully, got split into its own thread. Most of us can figure out what "female" means pretty easily. Non-mammalian reproductive classifications aren't relevant, and even intersex conditions within humans are actually still easy to classify as male or female on a biological level, and they're a red herring in this debate anyways.
The primary objection to this traditional definition from the trans activists is that it doesn't include transwomen and it does include transmen. But not everyone thinks this is a negative.
It's only really the trans activists who can't come up with a sensible definition.
You seem very confused, as does everyone else here. A definition isn't needed because you already know what a woman is? Good. Then define it. If you can't then you don't know what a woman is, you think or feel like you know.
I'm not asking for intersex or other species gender definitions to be included, simply human. You don't seem to have one but grasp onto traditional notions as if they were sacred. Lots of tradition was considered sacred. Until it wasn't.
It is most certainly not moot. This is not a confusion about definitions. We have managed for thousands of years to know what is and isn't a woman. It is very clear that that is not the definition being used when it is claimed that trans-women are women. Like all categories, there is some grey fuzz at the border... if that means our definition of woman is no good, then our definition of species is also no good. It's like pretending that because there was disagreement over whether Pluto was a planet, then whose to say that Jupiter is a planet? If we are going to go there, then our battle is with the idea of definitions and categories, not with the meaning of "woman".
if it isn't moot, then you should be able to define what a woman is. You haven't. You instead tried to change the subject. Genitalia is a different matter from (especially social) expressions of gender, which is the real sticking point here. You're conflating two very different things and pretending they're the same. They're not.
If you cannot define what a woman is, especially without having to use traditionally antiquated social expectations of what that means, you've failed. Period
And as for those fuzzy bits around the edges? There are a lot more of them than you're willing to admit, which is why you're attempting to minimize them.
What is a woman?
Simple question, right? Then why can't you answer it?
Others are going to tell you about defining "woman".
I'm going to tell you why the question of trans rights in public policy is not moot, even if "woman" cannot be defined. It is because the question of trans rights in public policy is a question of transcending sex segregation, not a question of recognizing transgender identity. A transwoman can invent any definition of woman he likes, or no definition at all, and it doesn't change the fact that he's still male. And male is very well defined.
We can be entirely agnostic, ignorant, and confused about what "woman" means, and still be very clear about whether or not we think transwomen should have access to sex-segregated spaces for women.
We don't need to have a definition of woman to know that saying a transwoman is "the first female X" is crap. We don't need to have a definition of woman to know that housing transwomen with females in prison, or letting them compete with females in sports, is a bad idea.
Once you realize that this is really a battle over transsexualism in public policy, it becomes clear that the only thing that has become moot is the definition of woman. Everything else is easily understood and addressed.
Why is any of that a bad idea? I hear people say that but I've never seen any actual evidence of why it would be a bad idea. Sounds an awful lot like "people have been saying" to me.
There's no reason to maintain sex-segregation in any way, shape, or form. Anyone demanding that is simply afraid of change. "It's always been done that way, so why change it?" Well, why not? What purpose does it maintain for society to keep things as they are? The sexes are equal, right? Why aren't we treating them like they are then?
Also, your argument can be used to keep women out of traditionally male segregated spaces as well. Women shouldn't be involved in business. It's men's work, right? They should go back to being housewives. Does that make sense to you? And yet that's exactly what you're arguing for. It really confuses me how you, and so many other people, simply can't see that.
Yes, I'm being purposefully antagonistic but that's because there are people who very much want to go back to that period in our history. And you're supporting them, whether you intend to or not.
By putting "women" in quotes and using the phrase "per their own definition" you have already made it impossible to answer your question. We've seen this before, but the subject was moved to the science forum.
But tell us - who are 'they' and what is their definition?
For my money, a woman is a human in possession of a certain organs that include (but is not limited to) uterus, ovaries and vagina. This would include such humans that have had hysterectomies, mastectomies and other surgical interventions.
I put woman in quotes because everyone seems to have their own idea of what a woman is. No one wants to define it though because they know their definition would fail spectacularly. You're the first one to actually do that. However, you're definition includes trans men, a group that another poster has already excluded from being considered women. So who's right? Are you, or are they?
And that's the problem. Too many differing opinions and no one is willing to admit it or runs and hides when asked what their definition is.
Without a clear definition all we have are suppositions and personal opinions, none of which should be being used as evidence for or against anything. Especially when there is no definition for the very subject that people want to use their opinions to support or detract from.
Definitions matter. Without them you only have feelings and feelings can very much lie to us. Without a definition the entire situation is moot. Again with emphasis: WITHOUT A DEFINITION THE ENTIRE SITUATION IS MOOT.
What is a women?
We have one definition that was disputed before it was even given. Anyone else care to give it a try? Or are we going to continue down this "I'll know it when I see it" tract that leads nowhere?
Again, this is not a gotcha question. I really am asking it because I simply don't understand how so many people can assure me that they know what a woman is but when actually pressed on it either can't or won't answer. Four little words in a single simple question and almost no one will answer it, and the one answer I have seen falls very, very short.
