Actually, defining women is easy

clovenhooves The Personal Is Political Gender Critical Actually, defining women is easy

Actually, defining women is easy

Actually, defining women is easy

YesYourNigel

279

Nov 3 2025, 5:56 PM

#1

Just saw yet another dumbass act stupid and pretend like they don't know what a woman so I want to give a very simple answer to this:

A woman (or more broadly female human) is anyone with female primary reproductive organs (the organs whose job it is to produce sex gametes and all the sexual differences resulting from that - "female organs" from now on). It doesn't matter if those female (!) organs are malfunctioning or less developed or if parts of them are missing. If you have these female organs, you are female. If you lack them and have male organs instead, you are male. If you developed female organs despite having XY chromosomes, you are female. If you amputated your female organs because you are female and you don't like being female, you are still female. If you amputated them because of cancer, you're female. If you have to artificially fight your female organs producing the female levels of hormones necessary to sustain your female biology and health, you're female. If this leads to your female organs atrophying because you're fucking with your healthy hormonal balance, you're still female. If you don't get your period or develop your breasts upon puberty because your female organs are not working properly, you're female. If you're in menopause because you have female organs, you're female. If you're a little child who has female organs but doesn't yet have breasts or the adult female skeletal structure and fat distribution, you're female.

Things that disqualify you from being female: having male primary reproductive organs. Having faulty or amputated or misdeveloped or atrophied male organs. Not producing or responding adequately to testosterone produced by your male organs. Having male organs while externally having a vulva (which is not a primary sexual organ since it is not involved in producing hormones or gametes).

Like, it's really as simple as that. You have the female organs whose whole point is in producing and sustaining female biology? You're female. Done. How are we even talking about this? How can so many people scratch their heads and claim science has no clue how sex works?

Edited Yesterday, 7:12 PM by YesYourNigel.

I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing

YesYourNigel

Nov 3 2025, 5:56 PM #1

Just saw yet another dumbass act stupid and pretend like they don't know what a woman so I want to give a very simple answer to this:

A woman (or more broadly female human) is anyone with female primary reproductive organs (the organs whose job it is to produce sex gametes and all the sexual differences resulting from that - "female organs" from now on). It doesn't matter if those female (!) organs are malfunctioning or less developed or if parts of them are missing. If you have these female organs, you are female. If you lack them and have male organs instead, you are male. If you developed female organs despite having XY chromosomes, you are female. If you amputated your female organs because you are female and you don't like being female, you are still female. If you amputated them because of cancer, you're female. If you have to artificially fight your female organs producing the female levels of hormones necessary to sustain your female biology and health, you're female. If this leads to your female organs atrophying because you're fucking with your healthy hormonal balance, you're still female. If you don't get your period or develop your breasts upon puberty because your female organs are not working properly, you're female. If you're in menopause because you have female organs, you're female. If you're a little child who has female organs but doesn't yet have breasts or the adult female skeletal structure and fat distribution, you're female.

Things that disqualify you from being female: having male primary reproductive organs. Having faulty or amputated or misdeveloped or atrophied male organs. Not producing or responding adequately to testosterone produced by your male organs. Having male organs while externally having a vulva (which is not a primary sexual organ since it is not involved in producing hormones or gametes).

Like, it's really as simple as that. You have the female organs whose whole point is in producing and sustaining female biology? You're female. Done. How are we even talking about this? How can so many people scratch their heads and claim science has no clue how sex works?

I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing

Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

1,215

Today, 1:56 AM

#2

(Nov 3 2025, 5:56 PM)YesYourNigel Like, it's really as simple as that. You have the female organs whose whole point is in producing and sustaining female biology? You're female. Done. How are we even talking about this? How can so many people scratch their heads and claim science has no clue how sex works?

Being disingenuous is the primary way TRAs can promote their ideology. Hell, this whole need to map out every single edge case on what makes one "female" is part of that too, as then they'll play their smug "what is a chair" game, as if they're geniuses when they're able to use someone's split second definition of a chair to dub a horse a "chair." Which, I suppose, does line up with their logic that a bulky dude wearing some makeup screaming "IT'S MA'AM" at a GameStop employee is a woman. Anything can be anything to them.

If they manage to put aside their circular definitions of "a woman is anyone who feels like a woman" for a moment, or accept that playing dumb about what a chair is just makes them look even more absurd, they'll default to intersex conditions (DSDs) as "gotchas" for some of the more descriptive definitions of women. That's when all the edge cases start piling up. And I suppose at this point they'll dismiss anyone that far into trying to appease them with a mountain of caveats and disclaimers on defining "woman", and instead pivot to trying to convince onlookers "look at those whackos, isn't it just easier to accept our stupidass circular definition of 'a woman is anyone who says they are a woman'?"

Basically the quote: "it's difficult to use logic to get someone out of a stance that they didn't logic themselves into."

Edited Today, 2:02 AM by Clover.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover

Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

Today, 1:56 AM #2

(Nov 3 2025, 5:56 PM)YesYourNigel Like, it's really as simple as that. You have the female organs whose whole point is in producing and sustaining female biology? You're female. Done. How are we even talking about this? How can so many people scratch their heads and claim science has no clue how sex works?

Being disingenuous is the primary way TRAs can promote their ideology. Hell, this whole need to map out every single edge case on what makes one "female" is part of that too, as then they'll play their smug "what is a chair" game, as if they're geniuses when they're able to use someone's split second definition of a chair to dub a horse a "chair." Which, I suppose, does line up with their logic that a bulky dude wearing some makeup screaming "IT'S MA'AM" at a GameStop employee is a woman. Anything can be anything to them.

If they manage to put aside their circular definitions of "a woman is anyone who feels like a woman" for a moment, or accept that playing dumb about what a chair is just makes them look even more absurd, they'll default to intersex conditions (DSDs) as "gotchas" for some of the more descriptive definitions of women. That's when all the edge cases start piling up. And I suppose at this point they'll dismiss anyone that far into trying to appease them with a mountain of caveats and disclaimers on defining "woman", and instead pivot to trying to convince onlookers "look at those whackos, isn't it just easier to accept our stupidass circular definition of 'a woman is anyone who says they are a woman'?"

Basically the quote: "it's difficult to use logic to get someone out of a stance that they didn't logic themselves into."

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Recently Browsing
1 Guest(s)

Recently Browsing
1 Guest(s)