Actually, defining women is easy

YesYourNigel

312

Nov 3 2025, 5:56 PM

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 Nov 4 2025, 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

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

Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

1,343

Nov 5 2025, 1:56 AM

(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 Nov 5 2025, 2:02 AM by Clover.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover

Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

Nov 5 2025, 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?

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

YesYourNigel

312

Nov 7 2025, 9:25 AM

Quote: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."

This one really drives me up a wall. It's not contributing or doing anything of substance. It's not arguing that a definition is flawed in a constructive way or how it can be expanded to include these edge cases and exceptions. It's literally arguing against the benefits of any definition at all. It sees one instance that doesn't fit neatly into its most surface-level definition and just throws its hands in the air to go full anti-intellectual "WELP I guess god works in mysterious ways and we'll never know what the birds and the bees was referring to".

Also like...the only thing you're proving is that transwomen are women only insofar as they are also chairs and horses (which is also something transmedicalists hate because they like their gatekeeping belief in the magic of sex-changing castration and plastic surgeries). It's obviously a troll move but I do find it funny when TERF women identify as TIMs and demand accommodation for the infinite depths of their pain and discrimination. Hey, if "woman" has no objective or biological meaning whatsoever, then surely being a TIM is also something literally anyone can covet. In which case, why even have trans rights or, indeed, transitioning, since these things can't be defined anyway? I'm a TERF and I define trans as a bunch of whiny babies that are wrong and I'm right, check mate.

I guess the comment in the thread you linked says it best:

Quote:He relies on uncertainty in your definition, so forcing him into a position where he'd also wind up with that same uncertainty destroys his argument.

It really is a trolling tactic where people try to out-stupid each other, and use said stupidity to invalidate entire scientific ideas. Because if you can't describe the difference between a horse and a chair in the length of one snappy Tweet, then surely no one in the history of science could figure it out.

Quote: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

It's frustrating because you genuinely can't be expected to know every single case like this, but people really love the idea that they're the only ones who figured out that intersex exists, except instead of learning about these conditions, it's easier to present them as mystical and incomprehensible, and science as stupid and ignorant for accurately describing a man with a vulva as male because he has primary male genitalia. He's obviously a woman because he superficially has one characteristic we associate with women and he claims his gendersoul is pink, and science is bigoted for not accepting that!

Like, at the end of the day it really comes down to whether you have female genitalia or not. Not even which gametes you produce (because obviously infertile people exist), or which chromosomes you have (because that's not consistent either), but whether you have testes or ovaries. That's it. All of this quibbling over how someone got this female genitalia changes nothing about them being female and sure as fuck doesn't prove that someone's testicles (castrated or not) are equivalent.

Edited Nov 7 2025, 9:30 AM by YesYourNigel.

YesYourNigel

Nov 7 2025, 9:25 AM #3

Quote: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."

Quote:He relies on uncertainty in your definition, so forcing him into a position where he'd also wind up with that same uncertainty destroys his argument.

Quote: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

Impress Polly
The kind they warned you about.

121

Nov 8 2025, 1:22 AM

Exactly. A woman is a human adult with a womb. It's really not that tough to understand.

Men's relationship to the life-giving process is more remote, so the only way they can control it is by force and they tend to have the physical ability to exercise that force with success. That is the whole thing that is patriarchy. It's the whole entire game. Without comprehending our sex differences, you can't understand patriarchy; you can't understand how it works or why it's imposed, and when you can't understand the most basic things like that, you're ill-equipped to destroy it.

Edited Nov 9 2025, 7:48 PM by Impress Polly.

Impress Polly

The kind they warned you about.

Nov 8 2025, 1:22 AM #4

YesYourNigel

312

Nov 9 2025, 9:22 AM

(Nov 8 2025, 1:22 AM)Impress Polly Exactly. A woman is a human adult with a womb. It's really not the tough to understand.

It's moreso the ovaries that are the key. Most other organs we associate with female reproductive physiology are a result of healthy, nondisordered continuation of ovaries-fueled sexual development (the exception being the vulva and the ovaries themselves, which develop by default merely due to lack of testosterone/SRY genes, rather than via estrogen's intervention). Things can go wrong with creating this complex system and women can be born without various parts of it or with them malfunctioning, including a womb, but you cannot be born without the most basic distinction between male and female gonads, which is why intersex conditions are still categorised as male or female, even if the male looks completely female on the outside (as in the case of complete androgen insensitivity).

Quote:Without comprehending our sex differences, you can't understand patriarchy; you can't understand how it works or why it's imposed, and when you can't understand the most basic things like that, you're ill-equipped to destroy it.

While this explains the origin of the patriarchy, it doesn't explain everything about how the patriarchy functions at the moment. The patriarchy can be very paradoxical and even men who don't want children, gay men and women who can't have them are affected by it. It also ignores the prevalence of pedophilia and men's attraction to women who are decidedly too young to have children safely. Not to mention how it can often lead to odd results, like men having anal sex with men in dresses while calling themselves straight because the modern commercialised femininity that they've been conditioned to get off to has become completely separate from any actual female biology, and a dick and balls is something you can overlook so long as the man is pretty enough.

Edited Nov 17 2025, 7:32 PM by YesYourNigel.

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

YesYourNigel

Nov 9 2025, 9:22 AM #5

(Nov 8 2025, 1:22 AM)Impress Polly Exactly. A woman is a human adult with a womb. It's really not the tough to understand.

Quote:Without comprehending our sex differences, you can't understand patriarchy; you can't understand how it works or why it's imposed, and when you can't understand the most basic things like that, you're ill-equipped to destroy it.

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

Impress Polly
The kind they warned you about.

121

Nov 12 2025, 7:51 PM

(Nov 9 2025, 9:22 AM)YesYourNigel It's moreso the ovaries that are the key. Most other organs we associate with female reproductive physiology are a result of healthy, nondisordered continuation of ovaries-fueled sexual development (the exception being the vulva and the ovaries themselves, which develop by default merely due to lack of testosterone, rather than via estrogen's intervention). Things can go wrong with creating this complex system and women can be born without various parts of it or with them malfunctioning, including a womb, but you cannot be born without the most basic distinction between male and female gonads, which is why intersex conditions are still categorised as male or female, even if the male looks completely female on the outside (as in the case of complete androgen insensitivity).

Hm, a fair point. I tend to go for an explanation that's readily digestible to the layperson; one that doesn't sound like sciency talk (e.g. gonads) if I can because everyone knows what a womb is, but you make a lot of sense here. If we're looking to be precise, the ovaries are the most fundamental distinction.

Quote:While this explains the origin of the patriarchy, it doesn't explain everything about how the patriarchy functions at the moment. The patriarchy can be very paradoxical and even men who don't want children, gay men and women who can't have them are affected by it. It also ignores the prevalence of pedophilia and men's attraction to women who are decidedly too young to have children safely. Not to mention how it can often lead to odd results, like men having anal sex with men in dresses while calling themselves straight because the modern commercialised femininity that they've been conditioned to get off to has become completely separate from any actual female biology, and a dick and balls is something you can overlook so long as the man is pretty enough.

True enough, but those are things that I mentally classify in the categories of downstream effects or just plain misogyny, as contrasted with the essence of patriarchy itself. The essence of patriarchy is the reduction of women's status to that of male property for the purposes of establishing male control of reproduction. To the extent that that is the situation you have, you live under a patriarchal social structure.

Edited Nov 12 2025, 8:01 PM by Impress Polly.

Impress Polly

The kind they warned you about.

Nov 12 2025, 7:51 PM #6

(Nov 9 2025, 9:22 AM)YesYourNigel It's moreso the ovaries that are the key. Most other organs we associate with female reproductive physiology are a result of healthy, nondisordered continuation of ovaries-fueled sexual development (the exception being the vulva and the ovaries themselves, which develop by default merely due to lack of testosterone, rather than via estrogen's intervention). Things can go wrong with creating this complex system and women can be born without various parts of it or with them malfunctioning, including a womb, but you cannot be born without the most basic distinction between male and female gonads, which is why intersex conditions are still categorised as male or female, even if the male looks completely female on the outside (as in the case of complete androgen insensitivity).

Quote:While this explains the origin of the patriarchy, it doesn't explain everything about how the patriarchy functions at the moment. The patriarchy can be very paradoxical and even men who don't want children, gay men and women who can't have them are affected by it. It also ignores the prevalence of pedophilia and men's attraction to women who are decidedly too young to have children safely. Not to mention how it can often lead to odd results, like men having anal sex with men in dresses while calling themselves straight because the modern commercialised femininity that they've been conditioned to get off to has become completely separate from any actual female biology, and a dick and balls is something you can overlook so long as the man is pretty enough.

YesYourNigel

312

Nov 17 2025, 7:32 PM

(Nov 12 2025, 7:51 PM)Impress Polly Hm, a fair point. I tend to go for an explanation that's readily digestible to the layperson; one that doesn't sound like sciency talk (e.g. gonads) if I can because everyone knows what a womb is, but you make a lot of sense here. If we're looking to be precise, the ovaries are the most fundamental distinction.

I wish we didn't have to be precise and we could simply say "female genitals", but these people are so fucking manipulative that you need to choose your language carefully. It's so hateable because they're not achieving anything. They're at best proving that the people who aren't experts in developmental biology and disorders of sexual development....indeed aren't experts in developmental biology and disorders of sexual development. It's like discrediting quantum physics because people on the street can't accurately explain Schroedinger's cat. They'll do shit like pull up disorders where people are born without part of their (still male or female) genitals to disprove that genitals define sex or disprove that chromosomes define sex, and conveniently leave out that it's the SRY gene and the gonads that define sex. Like, this isn't some open question that science is scratching its head over. You didn't do jackshit except create a false sense of mystery by "disproving" a simplified mainstream understanding of the concept while avoiding giving the actual scientific explanation. Good job sounding like a pseudoscientific nutjob.

Edited Nov 17 2025, 7:43 PM by YesYourNigel.

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

YesYourNigel

Nov 17 2025, 7:32 PM #7

(Nov 12 2025, 7:51 PM)Impress Polly Hm, a fair point. I tend to go for an explanation that's readily digestible to the layperson; one that doesn't sound like sciency talk (e.g. gonads) if I can because everyone knows what a womb is, but you make a lot of sense here. If we're looking to be precise, the ovaries are the most fundamental distinction.

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

Print Thread

Recently Browsing
1 Guest(s)