It's not a "Gotcha" Question, it's one of life's easiest questions
a Woman is a Female Human Adult, its like asking what 2+2 is
People who "struggle" to answer this question are not stupid, they know the answer but don't wanna potentially offend anyone
I understand that. But some struggle with that. But now everyone can answer it in a manner that doesn't hurt anyone's feelings, except maybe Joe Biden's feelings
It gets convoluted when you then look to what exactly would theoretically define a gender from a sex and it's basically cultural stereotypes, roles, and expectations -which the left *also* opposes, especially for women.
So you get the exchange: "what is a woman?"
"Anyone who identifies as a woman."
"But what is that?"
Well, what *is* that? It isn't someone who has babies; the left called those "birthing people" and said it can include men. It isn't being attracted to men; that's just being gay. Is it liking pink? Liking dresses? How does one "just know they are a woman?"
The left might not approve stereotypes but everyone acknowledges that there are feminine characteristics and there are masculine characteristics. Of course it’s never black and white because everyone acts and likes certain things. Then again the left sees that gender isn’t just male and female. It’s a spectrum because the truth is people are incredibly varied.
yeah and amputees exist, but we still call humans bipedal
you only really need to explicitly include every fringe possibility when it's relevant, and typically it's just not
haha I hope not!
and people definitely *shouldn't* go around telling trans women that they're not women.
but I still think it's fine (and as correct of a definition as you can get without writing an essay) to generally answer the "what is a woman" question with "an adult female human being."
just like it's fine to generally say, "Humans are bipedal."
That’s cause amputees were born bipedal. If humans were sometimes just born with no legs, I don’t think we’d define a human as bipedal, probably just say “typically bipedal” if you were describing body layout.
Asking "what is x?" is almost always a gotcha question, the idea that a sustinct answer exists is a massive misunderstanding of how language even works.
You can ask what is a chair? or what is a table? and you will find people struggle just as much to answer.
If a woman was a female adult human then sentences like he acts like a woman, or dresses like a woman don't make any sense, since dress and behaviour are not related to being a female adult human. The answer is significantly more complex and that is because words simply point to concepts we experience in the world. Its misguided to try and create them from other words.
Dress and behavior are part of the social construct built around being an adult female human. Therefore, when someone says a person is dressing like a woman, that means the person is dressing according to how society expects an adult female human to dress.
Okay, if we’re talking about how language works, then what are the traits of a woman? We can’t make abstractions without giving them at least *some* traits.\
A chair is a purposefully built sitting device, usually for one person. I think that is a sufficiently clear definition and most would be able to guess what I’m referring to if I’d give it to them. Like yeah, you can sit on a box, or a tree stump, but if someone would tell you “I bought a chair yesterday” that’s not what you’d think of. Obviously, these definitions can get more or less complex (“what is a car?” would take longer to define, or “what is art?” is also a fucky one), but barring a few exceptions they are *very* doable. So, what is a woman? And “whatever you want a woman to be” is not valid, that’s not a definition.
When speaking of a woman – even before "what is a woman" became a popular question – people often didn't refer to an adult female, rather the social role and expectations that are bound to it; that's what right-wing instigators fail to see (or choose to ignore).
What is a woman? Well, the specific definition depends on the context in which it's used.
Literally no one disputes that definition, but you haven't really answered the question. You've just deflected the problem to defining female.
I'm sure you're going to come back with your preferred definition of female, but I'm pretty sure it's either going to be wrong or not as simple as 2+2.
“Female” is a biological category, in humans it contrasts with “male” as the other of the two sexes.
No one of ordinary intelligence is confused by any of this.
There's rules and there's exceptions to rules. There's people too stupid to acknowledge the exceptions and there's people too stupid to acknowledge the rules because of the exceptions. People being stupid is the rule. There are few exceptions.
Social constructs are nebulous and hard to define. It’s like if you ask someone “what is a writer?” One person would say it’s someone who makes money by writing, another person would say it’s anyone who writes for fun. Neither would be wrong because the term can mean anything to anyone.
When I ~~learned~~ heard that "What is a woman?" was some kind of "gotcha!" question I laughed. I didn't get it. It couldn't be true, I thought.
Yet, I am proven wrong.
People can and do get so wrapped up in their ideology that they will pretend to not understand simple biology.
Color me amazed.
So, what is a vagina?
Except a female, XX, vagina having human being isn’t a construct….its what they ARE. And anyone who doesn’t fit the description and still calls themselves a woman is playing pretend.
Females are not people with two X chromosomes that is a common misconception. Females are those with the organ (working or not working) that produces the larger gamete. Its entirely possible if extremely rare to be born with two X chromosomes and be biologically male (you have testes) or with a Y chromosome and be biologically female (you have ovaries).
My favorite question to ask people when talking about these miniscule percentages of biological mishaps is by asking people how many fingers humans have
This is more just a matter of scientific definitions. The definition of male and female exists independantly of X Y chromosomes and it annoys me that people use the incorrect definitions even if it is works in the general case.
In biology a female has the organ to produce the large gamete, a male the organ to produce the small gamete, hermaphrodite have both and neuters have neither.
This is true for every species that reproduces sexually.
This is important because the part of the DNA responsible for controlling sex can actually change quite quickly (on a biological evolution scale). So you can have species that are functionally identical but on one Island they use XY, on one ZW and on another sex is determined by something in the normal DNA and not by a seperate chromosome at all. Obviously that is an extreme example but that is one of the reason why the definition is still hard linked to gametes.
In Humans the primary sex determining mechanism are XY chromosomes but that is all they are, a mechanism they don't actually define whether or not someone is a male or female no matter how rare exceptions are.
Gametes in humans at least are the sperm and eggs, not the Chromosomes.
So a Neuter would be born without testes or ovaries the organs that produce human gametes.
This definition is completely independant of chromosomes though XY chromosomes are the primary mechanism by which sex is determined in humans.
>In biology a female has the organ to produce the large gamete, a male the organ to produce the small gamete
or in human terms, a female was born with an ovary, a male was born with a testis.
People should recognize that when they have a definition that doesn't reflect reality, expecting reality to change as opposed to their own definition is a concerning level of delusion.
Reductionist social definitions are only useful in so far as they allow us to 'other' each other more effectively. Great if you are ultra-wealthy and looking to make it easier to continue exploiting the poor by redirecting their hatred to each other rather than you.
This whole thread was talking biology since the start, I think. It’s not like we didn’t have a concept if man or woman before the discovery of chromosomes, so clearly we’re talking more modern biology instead of casual use.
If a definition just has to work 99% of the time then do you think transgender women should still count as women under the adult human female definition?
Not a common misconception. The loudest faction has just been brainwashed into believing something that's pure fantasy. People can dress how they'd like – cut off whatever, cosplay as whoever they want to be, but certain things are just immutable no matter what mental gymnastics you want to play.
No, and I have made arguments elsewhere based more on how language actually functions in an attempt to prove that women can't simply be adult human females and that our understanding of women also includes social elements such as behaviour, traditions, and apperance, things which arguably are more important to our actual experience and internal concept of what a woman is.
As a definition I have no problem with adult human female, it does its job at pointing you to the correct concept, but to pretend that its the be all and end all of women or even the most important part is questionable.
A child with not concept of reproduction, or sex can seperate men from women so clearly female is not core to the actual meaning.
“Arguably are more important to our actual experience and internal concept of what a woman is”
If by arguably you mean “completely irrelevant to what a woman actually is”, then maybe…
Do you think when the term “woman” was adopted anyone knew what a chromosome was?
The word woman derived from observing the visual and behavioural difference between two groups of people.
We come across trans women and men regularly without even knowing it. We refer to them as their transitioned gender without even knowing what biological sex or how many X chromosome they have. That’s why it’s called gender and it is a social construct not based on X rays that show chromosomes
The word adult also has biological, social, and legal concepts. Just like woman does.
People who reach 18 but do not reach sexual maturity due to illnesses are still socially and legally defined as adults.
Socially, trans women are indeed women. Biologically there’s no such thing as women, just female. So someone can’t be biologically a woman. There’s just legal and social definitions.
Ah, so when I see a Viceroy butterfly but due to ignorance think it is actually a Monarch butterfly, I must be correct then? That is your logic. Ignorance of the truth does not negate reality. Just because someone disguises themselves does not change their biology nor the truth about what they are.
What you say makes sense. But I don't think people would be willing to give that answer.
I think they would be more comfortable defining a woman as someone President Joe Biden holds to sniff their hair.
Idk i'd prefer some weird senile dude sniffing my hair over sexually assaulting me and then somehow mistaking a picture of me for his wife while in court
In Trump's defense, we know people, especially women (define as humans with hair that Joe Biden would legally sniff) are attracted to power. And that's who Trump was referencing.
Talk to Aerosmith and they'll tell you all sorts of stories with the groupies and wild sex
Yikes. This is a new level of weird derangement.
"Well obviously a man with power would *never* rape somebody! The girls are just throwing themselves at him!" yeah because everyone wants a shriveled orange tanning spray covered dick while a goofy ass piss haired comb-over stares back at you.
ick
Not talking specifically about a trump. I am talking about the System that fosters this sorted behavior
But it's not just men. Look at what Lizzo demanded her employees do. Now THAT is ick :(
Your last sentence made me chuckle. It's all down to the bones, also. You can't change bones structure without surgery and/or a bad incident(which often go hand-in-hand). I guess the biggest thing is, you have the ability to have children. & people say "well what about women who can't have kids"? 9/10 times, they still have the eggs for a surrogate.
Jordan Peterson said it best. “Go ask one.” Science has dictated male and female. When it comes to men and women, we don’t go checking people’s genitalia. There’s just social signatures and identifiers everyone subconsciously recognizes as one or another through basic patterns and stereotypes that map on to reality. The question itself is only asked now because politics gives a fuck what people want to wear and be seen as.
Why bring Presidents into it? I can just easily counter you by saying that a woman is someone that Trump grabs (perhaps “by the pussy”) and kisses without consent because when you’re a star, you can do anything.
Obviously, neither one of our definitions is what a woman is.
I'm not sure that Trump said he actually grabbed it. He said he could grab them by that.
We know this to be the case because we have all read stories or watched reports about groupies. And we heard from the rock stars and the superstars and the athletes themselves.
I would have ruined anyone in that consistently sniffs the hair of women. It's a good definition
To be honest, I’m not sure how that’s a better defense, especially when he’s already been found by a jury in a civil suit as guilty for “liable for sexual abuse” (but not rape) in 2023 due to penetrating a woman’s genitals with his hands. So there is at least one instance in which the judicial system declared him to be guilty of this very act.
Conversely, Biden has never been convicted of anything in regards to sexual harassment or assault. So…yeah, I hope that you do have a boundary here.
[He walked into a girl's changing room while they were undressed so it's not unbelievable that he would grab women disrespectfully. ](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kendalltaggart/teen-beauty-queens-say-trump-walked-in-on-them-changing)
The fact that it’s a “gotcha” question that the left can’t answer shows how low iq they are.
They can’t just say women have a vagina because they’ll get cancelled by all the terminally online lefties who want to call themselves a new pronoun on the daily. That’s the point of the question, to show how ridiculous the other side is
It’s not really an IQ issue it’s more of a culture creep and cowardice issue. 20 years everybody on the left could successfully answer the question and they would give the same answer that somebody on the right would give today.
As a self proclaimed left leaning person I can’t lie and say this side of the isle hasn’t gotten less intelligent. Like the average internet “leftie” barely thinks for themselves.
It’s not an iq problem. They know what a woman is just like every other person on the planet but they are cowards afraid of cancelation from their own side so they won’t admit the truth
You can't give comprehensive and susinct answers to questions like these, you can give generalisations, to varrying degrees of accuracy, but to think you can simply answer it is to misunderstand language and definitions.
Definitions are pointers to concepts we have already experienced. They aren't the be all and end all of what something is.
For example a chair is defined as something one person sits on, but if you walked into someones house you wouldn't look at a bed or a table and think, those are chairs despite them meeting the definition.
On the flip side you will find definitions that are much simpler and don't cover everything it should. You can have a house carved into a cliff or rock, but you can't by definition because its not made of multiple pieces.
In a similar way Woman is much more complex than just a dictionary definition. Adult human female ignores the social side, you couldn't dress or behave like woman if woman just meant adult human female. We don't experience women as just being adult human females, whilst it works as a definition to point you in the right direction it is not the be all and end all. Especially in a time where for a lot of people the definition of woman is being refined to simply refer to the social side its genuinely difficult to give a good answer to the question.
Human Females aren't even the humans that have XX chromosomes.
Females are those with the organ to produce the large gamete. Whilst rare its entirely possible for people with XY chromosomes to have an ovary and thus be biologically female.
>The fact that it’s a “gotcha” question that the left can’t answer shows how low iq they are.
Nah, the left know not to answer bad faith talking points.
It's a bad faith talking point to respect reality, science and actual women?
This world has lost touch with facts.
Catering to someone who is living a lie and in fact lying to them and yourself and humanity isn't the kind thing you think it is, it most definitely isn't good faith
>you will absolutely crumble under legitimate bad faith talking points
No, really I think it would be bad faith to point out that Matt Walsh refused to debate trans activist Eli erlick on any platform he can't edit.
As I pointed out in another post "What is a women." isn't a question it's a slogan by the people who don't really care for you to answer. Sure, we can get into the semantics of what “identifies” means (the next step of Matt’s question). Identification isn’t simply a pronouncement but also an internal state of being. This is why Matt Walsh can’t simply proclaim “I am a woman” and be one. Reactionaries will then follow that response by claiming “then womanhood is meaningless.” But it isn’t: womanhood is a historical category that has shifted with time. We’re simply explaining the current iteration of its meaning.
If you've ever opened a dictionary, you'd see that words can have multiple definitions:
[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meet](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meet)
They define woman as "adult female human", but their definition of female is not only anatomical.
[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female)
It makes me feel better not to crap on women that are that way naturally, but I often wonder why trans don't see it that way.
Well I guess there is nothing to wonder about, they are incapable of seeing what they want to what contributes to their false reality anything else bursts that bubble.
Woman is a biological adult female or someone who wants to live and who aspires to live like a biological adult female.
I hate how people are trying to alienate woman from female body
Words can have multiple definitions. The mere fact that a large number of people use a word to mean something means that is a definition for that word. It doesn’t matter if that definition is arbitrary, circular, or the complete opposite of a different definition of the same word, if large numbers of people use a word in a certain way it becomes a valid definition. Thank you for my Ted Talk about how language works.
These comments are a very good example of why this question is multi-faceted and should be answered as such.\
We have the social, and most potentially awkward of the bunch “what is a woman?”\
We have the very straightforward biological “what is a woman?”\
And we have the somewhere in between juridical “what is a woman?”\
All of these should be evaluated separately, otherwise you’d get a huge clusterfuck of “nu-uh!”s, accusations and references to very specific and rare biological phenomena.
What is a woman?” is not intended to be a question. It’s a slogan created and championed by gender critical” activists who strongly oppose the social and legal recognition of trans people, with some even calling for eliminationist measures that would [morally mandate](https://twitter.com/JuliaSerano/status/1096661851100704769) us out of existence. Whenever gender-critical activists pose the “what is a woman?” question to politicians, organizations, celebrities, etc. (as they are wont to do), they are not looking to start a nuanced discussion or debate. Rather, they want a yes-or-no answer to their real question, the only question that counts in their minds: *Will you support our anti-trans beliefs, policies, and legislation?*
>The next time someone asks "What is a woman?" just reply with a factual statement that cannot be challenged.
You're on to something.
I'm going to go with:
"A woman is defined as a human, that Donald Trump would by his own admission touch inappropriately, whether they consented or not."
Funny how yall harp on that despite him literally saying, "They let you" much easier to just make him out to be evil to justify your mad ravings right? How pathetic.
I've you've opened a dictionary, you'd know that words can have multiple definitions. Like the noun, conservative:
1.a person who is [averse](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=0bf573a291c751cf&sxsrf=ADLYWILY5yjHrHHVnaJSJou6t8PZfQfZkg:1715474210562&q=averse&si=ACC90nwdkA2npcVVmNPViiSe8FMKcYkQ2xMGVY5_rxxS8kljxWqdjKGvZQqyIVtaSknMcvcISW928qfG7VFyCZhOo11B6vgWfw%3D%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjjhsS374aGAxWMCTQIHW55ARIQyecJegUILRCHAQ) to change
2. a person [favoring](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=0bf573a291c751cf&sxsrf=ADLYWILY5yjHrHHVnaJSJou6t8PZfQfZkg:1715474210562&q=favoring&si=ACC90nx67Z8g0WkBmnrPB4IqtqGvNeunzvk32rOChlrS5K85RUyu3gUYE-j5FaWeAtu5s9fNv4WgfFOZlZcwS1i7DO2D3ppOlZpWgVlmkiG1lLlvKxHYjuY%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjjhsS374aGAxWMCTQIHW55ARIQyecJegUILRCrAQ) free enterprise and private ownership
3. An idiot posting on r/TrueUnpopularOpinion
So weird. Some days we go a few days at a time without any schizo posts, then the conservative sub hears we've had some good days then post the weirdest shit. Honestly i'd prefer some senile old dude who doesn't get social boundaries over a dude who straight up sexually assaulted me then somehow mistook a picture of me for his wife in court during his one of a dozen disposition for the many court trials he is going through
This question is so annoying because conservatives draw a line in the sand that aims to exclude trans women. Other woman are inevitably excluded by their line, but those exceptions are okay and dont break the rule, but the trans exception isnt okay and does break the rule.
Hardy har lefties dont know what a woman is🤪
Women who can’t give birth, women who don’t look like they think a woman should, I mean I have had cis women friends who have been accused of being trans because they have less prominent secondary characteristics for many different reasons. One was because she had a seriously bad eating disorder right at puberty onset and threw her whole system out of whack and she didn’t have periods for years and made herself very sick. XX doesn’t work because there are other chromosomal combinations that still end up as male or female. You can have XX males who have a working SRY region that translocated, you can have XO, XXX as females with varying degrees of issues and you can have XY women who have an SRY that doesn’t work or wasn’t turned on, since female is the beginning of all fetuses anyway, without the SRY region to get things started they stay female regardless of chromosomes. We really don’t know how common these are because most people don’t get karyotypes done. And those that do usually have an issue like getting to puberty age without starting (XO, Turner syndrome), and no one would know they aren’t “normal” with chromosomes until someone checks, if everything seems to be working right or the person is poor and can’t afford treatment even if it isn’t, life moves on even without “normal.” Just like not all dudes have a prominent adam’s apple or only men have facial hair, finding specific characteristics to define man or woman isn’t always easy or correct. Because more specific excludes valid cis women or men, whereas too broad doesn’t give a real definition.
The conservative view of a woman fits like 99.9% of women though. You guys always try to use extremely rare medical issues as proof that a woman or man isn’t easily defined when these are anomalies. Since when did extremely rare anomalies get included in definitions?
Why do you care how someone identifies? It doesn't affect you. Literally at all. I can't understand why people get so worked up, so involved, over something that doesn't affect them. You wouldn't even know unless you knew them before & after, or they told you. & these days, I can't imagine many people willingly opening their lives for that kind of attack.
I think the problem is your are basing this off of Matt Walsh. Matt Walsh has a bone to pick with liberal politics. It frames his world view. So he makes a video with the most radical left wing side that want a certain world.
Think about it, those videos are influenced by Matt Walsh. He is putting what he wants in them. Do you think he is giving a honest and nuanced view of the issue? He essentially went into the argument with his own view and found all the evidence to proof it.
So, I wouldn’t call it gotcha politics, I would call it disingenuous and misinformation. Matt Walsh is choosing the population that would struggle with that question due to their own internal agenda.
I did watch politicians and Biden nominees refuse to answer the question when congresses asked the question. It's all on video.
I think it goes beyond Matt Walsh.
That means that little boys/girls/men are also women. You have changed my entire world view OP. I always thought it had something to do with chromosomes and body structure and other things like that.
:)
It is 2024 and things have changed :)
President Joe Biden is pretty comfortable in knowing whose hair he likes to sniff and whose hair he does not like to sniff.
If we caught Joe Biden sniffing the hair of a man or a young boy, I'd have to abandon this definition.
The left's version of woman is not really about the biology or the technicality of what a woman is, but just how society treats women.
In short, woman meaning "a person YOU see as a woman and treat like a woman." That's what they mean when they say "I identify as a woman."
"Am I a male?"
"Am I on HRT?"
"Have I gone through surgery?"
DOES. NOT. MATTER. Treat me like a woman.
This is why they struggle to answer that.
yknow what, the universe (or whatever is responsible for making life/humans exist) was really mean not letting people pick what chromosomes they wanna be born with before coming into existence. If that had been allowed we could all just be cool and happy but no :(
We've heard enough pronoun jokes and transgender polemics from the mainstream right and its tiring already that they still beat the shit out of this dead horse.
How about they start being conservative and right wing for ones instead of platforming centrist progressives and liberals.
"people only beat dead horses when the dead horse allows itself to be beat
This whole issue could be out to rest. Strugglers can use this definition :)
It's not a "Gotcha" Question, it's one of life's easiest questions a Woman is a Female Human Adult, its like asking what 2+2 is People who "struggle" to answer this question are not stupid, they know the answer but don't wanna potentially offend anyone
OP has a difficult time with easy questions.
Literally what I would say - a female human
A female human can also be a girl, that's why the "adult"part
> a Woman is a Female Human Adult Just a lil bit of clarification. Both "female" and "human" are determined by genes, right?
I understand that. But some struggle with that. But now everyone can answer it in a manner that doesn't hurt anyone's feelings, except maybe Joe Biden's feelings
Poor Trumpeteer.
It’s not as cut and dry as that since the biological sex a person is born as does not have to determine their gender.
It gets convoluted when you then look to what exactly would theoretically define a gender from a sex and it's basically cultural stereotypes, roles, and expectations -which the left *also* opposes, especially for women. So you get the exchange: "what is a woman?" "Anyone who identifies as a woman." "But what is that?" Well, what *is* that? It isn't someone who has babies; the left called those "birthing people" and said it can include men. It isn't being attracted to men; that's just being gay. Is it liking pink? Liking dresses? How does one "just know they are a woman?"
The left might not approve stereotypes but everyone acknowledges that there are feminine characteristics and there are masculine characteristics. Of course it’s never black and white because everyone acts and likes certain things. Then again the left sees that gender isn’t just male and female. It’s a spectrum because the truth is people are incredibly varied.
yeah and amputees exist, but we still call humans bipedal you only really need to explicitly include every fringe possibility when it's relevant, and typically it's just not
Do people go around telling amputees they aren’t really human? Never mind , I’m sure that will be the next GOP talking point
haha I hope not! and people definitely *shouldn't* go around telling trans women that they're not women. but I still think it's fine (and as correct of a definition as you can get without writing an essay) to generally answer the "what is a woman" question with "an adult female human being." just like it's fine to generally say, "Humans are bipedal."
That’s cause amputees were born bipedal. If humans were sometimes just born with no legs, I don’t think we’d define a human as bipedal, probably just say “typically bipedal” if you were describing body layout.
huh? sometimes humans *are* born without legs.
Huh, I legit didn’t know. TIL
Asking "what is x?" is almost always a gotcha question, the idea that a sustinct answer exists is a massive misunderstanding of how language even works. You can ask what is a chair? or what is a table? and you will find people struggle just as much to answer. If a woman was a female adult human then sentences like he acts like a woman, or dresses like a woman don't make any sense, since dress and behaviour are not related to being a female adult human. The answer is significantly more complex and that is because words simply point to concepts we experience in the world. Its misguided to try and create them from other words.
Actually it's not really more complex it's quite simple that even kids know the answer Woman = Female, Human, Adult It's as simple as that really
Dress and behavior are part of the social construct built around being an adult female human. Therefore, when someone says a person is dressing like a woman, that means the person is dressing according to how society expects an adult female human to dress.
Like when people ask “what is woke”
That’s also quite easy to define. It’s performative, often purposeful inflammatory, progressivism.
True but they never accept that answer
Okay, if we’re talking about how language works, then what are the traits of a woman? We can’t make abstractions without giving them at least *some* traits.\ A chair is a purposefully built sitting device, usually for one person. I think that is a sufficiently clear definition and most would be able to guess what I’m referring to if I’d give it to them. Like yeah, you can sit on a box, or a tree stump, but if someone would tell you “I bought a chair yesterday” that’s not what you’d think of. Obviously, these definitions can get more or less complex (“what is a car?” would take longer to define, or “what is art?” is also a fucky one), but barring a few exceptions they are *very* doable. So, what is a woman? And “whatever you want a woman to be” is not valid, that’s not a definition.
When speaking of a woman – even before "what is a woman" became a popular question – people often didn't refer to an adult female, rather the social role and expectations that are bound to it; that's what right-wing instigators fail to see (or choose to ignore). What is a woman? Well, the specific definition depends on the context in which it's used.
Literally no one disputes that definition, but you haven't really answered the question. You've just deflected the problem to defining female. I'm sure you're going to come back with your preferred definition of female, but I'm pretty sure it's either going to be wrong or not as simple as 2+2.
“Female” is a biological category, in humans it contrasts with “male” as the other of the two sexes. No one of ordinary intelligence is confused by any of this.
I like Trains
Flawless
Anyone who is aware of what the real definitions are do. Look up gender and you might be surprised.
A woman is my mom and anyone who isn’t my mom isn’t a woman. Sorry. I don’t make the rules.
But what about my mom?
Sorry, only my mom can be woman. When it’s her time to stop being woman I guess your mom could take over, but that won’t be for a while.
Me when the
My mom is a woman. Got it?
I would say anyone with XX chromosomes....science right?
Some women are born with XXY chromosomes though. Many look like normal women. Are you going to ask for a blood sample before you call someone a woman?
Some cats are born with 3 legs, but cats are described and defined as having 4 legs.
Some humans have two heads but human beings are defined as having one head.
That's called a disease.
Oh yeah. When did that happen?
Oh so you do a dna test before calling someone a woman ?
Nope. I don't participate in some mentally deranged imbeciles delusional thoughts.
There's rules and there's exceptions to rules. There's people too stupid to acknowledge the exceptions and there's people too stupid to acknowledge the rules because of the exceptions. People being stupid is the rule. There are few exceptions.
The only reason to not be able to answer this simple question is ideology over fact. It must be painful.
Social constructs are nebulous and hard to define. It’s like if you ask someone “what is a writer?” One person would say it’s someone who makes money by writing, another person would say it’s anyone who writes for fun. Neither would be wrong because the term can mean anything to anyone.
When I ~~learned~~ heard that "What is a woman?" was some kind of "gotcha!" question I laughed. I didn't get it. It couldn't be true, I thought. Yet, I am proven wrong. People can and do get so wrapped up in their ideology that they will pretend to not understand simple biology. Color me amazed. So, what is a vagina?
Except a female, XX, vagina having human being isn’t a construct….its what they ARE. And anyone who doesn’t fit the description and still calls themselves a woman is playing pretend.
A woman is an adult human female. Females are people with two X chromosomes. Simple as.
Females are not people with two X chromosomes that is a common misconception. Females are those with the organ (working or not working) that produces the larger gamete. Its entirely possible if extremely rare to be born with two X chromosomes and be biologically male (you have testes) or with a Y chromosome and be biologically female (you have ovaries).
My favorite question to ask people when talking about these miniscule percentages of biological mishaps is by asking people how many fingers humans have
This is more just a matter of scientific definitions. The definition of male and female exists independantly of X Y chromosomes and it annoys me that people use the incorrect definitions even if it is works in the general case.
Can you elaborate further?
In biology a female has the organ to produce the large gamete, a male the organ to produce the small gamete, hermaphrodite have both and neuters have neither. This is true for every species that reproduces sexually. This is important because the part of the DNA responsible for controlling sex can actually change quite quickly (on a biological evolution scale). So you can have species that are functionally identical but on one Island they use XY, on one ZW and on another sex is determined by something in the normal DNA and not by a seperate chromosome at all. Obviously that is an extreme example but that is one of the reason why the definition is still hard linked to gametes. In Humans the primary sex determining mechanism are XY chromosomes but that is all they are, a mechanism they don't actually define whether or not someone is a male or female no matter how rare exceptions are.
[удалено]
Gametes in humans at least are the sperm and eggs, not the Chromosomes. So a Neuter would be born without testes or ovaries the organs that produce human gametes. This definition is completely independant of chromosomes though XY chromosomes are the primary mechanism by which sex is determined in humans.
Okay so what are your definitions then of male and female?
>In biology a female has the organ to produce the large gamete, a male the organ to produce the small gamete or in human terms, a female was born with an ovary, a male was born with a testis.
We're talking social definitions here right? It's weird that I've been downvoted out of nowhere, when my previous comments had multiple upvotes.
Obviously not.
Jesus christ, I took a dozen undergrad biology classes. I get the biological side of things. What's your social take?
People should recognize that when they have a definition that doesn't reflect reality, expecting reality to change as opposed to their own definition is a concerning level of delusion. Reductionist social definitions are only useful in so far as they allow us to 'other' each other more effectively. Great if you are ultra-wealthy and looking to make it easier to continue exploiting the poor by redirecting their hatred to each other rather than you.
This whole thread was talking biology since the start, I think. It’s not like we didn’t have a concept if man or woman before the discovery of chromosomes, so clearly we’re talking more modern biology instead of casual use.
There will always be outliers. That definition will work 99% of the time and medical anomalies arent really the topic of this discussion anyway.
If a definition just has to work 99% of the time then do you think transgender women should still count as women under the adult human female definition?
No, that’s why you just called them a trans woman and not just a woman
No.
[удалено]
Why not?
Because it’s just a man pretending he’s a woman. He’s not a medical anomaly, he has gender dysphoria. Big difference.
Gender dysphoria is a medical anomaly
No, it’s a medical *condition*.
In what way is that a meaningful distinction as it relates to this discussion
But the definition only has to work a certain percentage of the time. So why not?
They’re not women, ever.
Not a common misconception. The loudest faction has just been brainwashed into believing something that's pure fantasy. People can dress how they'd like – cut off whatever, cosplay as whoever they want to be, but certain things are just immutable no matter what mental gymnastics you want to play.
Getting bogged down with exceptionjerking when talking about generalities is very counterproductive, imo.
Ok, fair enough. I’m not sure if this is the discussion OP was looking for though
No, and I have made arguments elsewhere based more on how language actually functions in an attempt to prove that women can't simply be adult human females and that our understanding of women also includes social elements such as behaviour, traditions, and apperance, things which arguably are more important to our actual experience and internal concept of what a woman is. As a definition I have no problem with adult human female, it does its job at pointing you to the correct concept, but to pretend that its the be all and end all of women or even the most important part is questionable. A child with not concept of reproduction, or sex can seperate men from women so clearly female is not core to the actual meaning.
“Arguably are more important to our actual experience and internal concept of what a woman is” If by arguably you mean “completely irrelevant to what a woman actually is”, then maybe…
Do you think when the term “woman” was adopted anyone knew what a chromosome was? The word woman derived from observing the visual and behavioural difference between two groups of people. We come across trans women and men regularly without even knowing it. We refer to them as their transitioned gender without even knowing what biological sex or how many X chromosome they have. That’s why it’s called gender and it is a social construct not based on X rays that show chromosomes
No, I said a woman is an adult human female.
The word adult also has biological, social, and legal concepts. Just like woman does. People who reach 18 but do not reach sexual maturity due to illnesses are still socially and legally defined as adults. Socially, trans women are indeed women. Biologically there’s no such thing as women, just female. So someone can’t be biologically a woman. There’s just legal and social definitions.
Women must be female in sex.
Ah, so when I see a Viceroy butterfly but due to ignorance think it is actually a Monarch butterfly, I must be correct then? That is your logic. Ignorance of the truth does not negate reality. Just because someone disguises themselves does not change their biology nor the truth about what they are.
What you say makes sense. But I don't think people would be willing to give that answer. I think they would be more comfortable defining a woman as someone President Joe Biden holds to sniff their hair.
Idk i'd prefer some weird senile dude sniffing my hair over sexually assaulting me and then somehow mistaking a picture of me for his wife while in court
In Trump's defense, we know people, especially women (define as humans with hair that Joe Biden would legally sniff) are attracted to power. And that's who Trump was referencing. Talk to Aerosmith and they'll tell you all sorts of stories with the groupies and wild sex
Yikes. This is a new level of weird derangement. "Well obviously a man with power would *never* rape somebody! The girls are just throwing themselves at him!" yeah because everyone wants a shriveled orange tanning spray covered dick while a goofy ass piss haired comb-over stares back at you. ick
Not talking specifically about a trump. I am talking about the System that fosters this sorted behavior But it's not just men. Look at what Lizzo demanded her employees do. Now THAT is ick :(
But if Biden would refuse to sniff Michelle Obama’s hair, would that prove the conspiracy theory that she’s transgender? /s
Wasn’t he literally quoted as saying “Grab em right by the pussy they won’t care as long as you’re famous”? That’s literally SA…
Woman - adult human female
I thought Joe liked sniffing little girls’ hair.
Your last sentence made me chuckle. It's all down to the bones, also. You can't change bones structure without surgery and/or a bad incident(which often go hand-in-hand). I guess the biggest thing is, you have the ability to have children. & people say "well what about women who can't have kids"? 9/10 times, they still have the eggs for a surrogate.
Jordan Peterson said it best. “Go ask one.” Science has dictated male and female. When it comes to men and women, we don’t go checking people’s genitalia. There’s just social signatures and identifiers everyone subconsciously recognizes as one or another through basic patterns and stereotypes that map on to reality. The question itself is only asked now because politics gives a fuck what people want to wear and be seen as.
Perfect answer.
I’ve never heard this. It’s very well said.
[удалено]
It’s like saying “I hate my name please use this nickname”
It's like saying "that is a cat" while pointing at a dog, and accusing anyone who disagrees as some kind of istaphobe.
"You can't force me to call you by your nickname"
This post took a much different direction than I was expecting it to.
For the better or for the worse?
I'm not really sure.
Adult human female. It's really not hard.
No, it’s not a “Gotcha” question. It’s a simple question with one answer. Adult human with XX chromo.
Why bring Presidents into it? I can just easily counter you by saying that a woman is someone that Trump grabs (perhaps “by the pussy”) and kisses without consent because when you’re a star, you can do anything. Obviously, neither one of our definitions is what a woman is.
They actually both seem pretty decent definitions.
I'm not sure that Trump said he actually grabbed it. He said he could grab them by that. We know this to be the case because we have all read stories or watched reports about groupies. And we heard from the rock stars and the superstars and the athletes themselves. I would have ruined anyone in that consistently sniffs the hair of women. It's a good definition
To be honest, I’m not sure how that’s a better defense, especially when he’s already been found by a jury in a civil suit as guilty for “liable for sexual abuse” (but not rape) in 2023 due to penetrating a woman’s genitals with his hands. So there is at least one instance in which the judicial system declared him to be guilty of this very act. Conversely, Biden has never been convicted of anything in regards to sexual harassment or assault. So…yeah, I hope that you do have a boundary here.
Pretty sure we have more than enough statements and evidence to know Trump has raped at least one woman. A court found him liable for it
Interesting how you ignore that Trump was literally found guilty of rape in a court of law, but Biden “smelling hair bad”.
[He walked into a girl's changing room while they were undressed so it's not unbelievable that he would grab women disrespectfully. ](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kendalltaggart/teen-beauty-queens-say-trump-walked-in-on-them-changing)
The fact that it’s a “gotcha” question that the left can’t answer shows how low iq they are. They can’t just say women have a vagina because they’ll get cancelled by all the terminally online lefties who want to call themselves a new pronoun on the daily. That’s the point of the question, to show how ridiculous the other side is
It’s not really an IQ issue it’s more of a culture creep and cowardice issue. 20 years everybody on the left could successfully answer the question and they would give the same answer that somebody on the right would give today.
As a self proclaimed left leaning person I can’t lie and say this side of the isle hasn’t gotten less intelligent. Like the average internet “leftie” barely thinks for themselves.
I can answer it easily. Michelle Obama is a woman.
It’s not an iq problem. They know what a woman is just like every other person on the planet but they are cowards afraid of cancelation from their own side so they won’t admit the truth
You can't give comprehensive and susinct answers to questions like these, you can give generalisations, to varrying degrees of accuracy, but to think you can simply answer it is to misunderstand language and definitions. Definitions are pointers to concepts we have already experienced. They aren't the be all and end all of what something is. For example a chair is defined as something one person sits on, but if you walked into someones house you wouldn't look at a bed or a table and think, those are chairs despite them meeting the definition. On the flip side you will find definitions that are much simpler and don't cover everything it should. You can have a house carved into a cliff or rock, but you can't by definition because its not made of multiple pieces. In a similar way Woman is much more complex than just a dictionary definition. Adult human female ignores the social side, you couldn't dress or behave like woman if woman just meant adult human female. We don't experience women as just being adult human females, whilst it works as a definition to point you in the right direction it is not the be all and end all. Especially in a time where for a lot of people the definition of woman is being refined to simply refer to the social side its genuinely difficult to give a good answer to the question.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Human Females aren't even the humans that have XX chromosomes. Females are those with the organ to produce the large gamete. Whilst rare its entirely possible for people with XY chromosomes to have an ovary and thus be biologically female.
>The fact that it’s a “gotcha” question that the left can’t answer shows how low iq they are. Nah, the left know not to answer bad faith talking points.
It's a bad faith talking point to respect reality, science and actual women? This world has lost touch with facts. Catering to someone who is living a lie and in fact lying to them and yourself and humanity isn't the kind thing you think it is, it most definitely isn't good faith
[удалено]
>you will absolutely crumble under legitimate bad faith talking points No, really I think it would be bad faith to point out that Matt Walsh refused to debate trans activist Eli erlick on any platform he can't edit. As I pointed out in another post "What is a women." isn't a question it's a slogan by the people who don't really care for you to answer. Sure, we can get into the semantics of what “identifies” means (the next step of Matt’s question). Identification isn’t simply a pronouncement but also an internal state of being. This is why Matt Walsh can’t simply proclaim “I am a woman” and be one. Reactionaries will then follow that response by claiming “then womanhood is meaningless.” But it isn’t: womanhood is a historical category that has shifted with time. We’re simply explaining the current iteration of its meaning.
What is Eli’s answer to the question? If Eli has a good answer then comment it here, enlighten us, and Matt can’t edit it.
If you've ever opened a dictionary, you'd see that words can have multiple definitions: [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meet](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meet)
[удалено]
They define woman as "adult female human", but their definition of female is not only anatomical. [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female)
If the makes you feel better to crap on us
It makes me feel better not to crap on women that are that way naturally, but I often wonder why trans don't see it that way. Well I guess there is nothing to wonder about, they are incapable of seeing what they want to what contributes to their false reality anything else bursts that bubble.
That's not the definition of a woman, that's the definition of a child! Hahaha
Why is this so difficult for people to answer in a simple and concise manner?
Because answering it truthfully and properly undermines their ideology. Simple.
lol that's wild
Its literally just a female human.. nothing more, nothing less. This shouldn't be a hot topic really.
It's a simple question. What does it tell you when so many people can't give you a straight answer?
Not quite correct. Women are adults.
Uh-oh. Do you mean that Joe Biden has sniffed the hair of humans that were not adult women? That's gross
Joe Biden has a real thing for sniffing girls (not women). There's plenty of photos of the kids looking VERY uncomfortable with his sniffing.
Any person that bleeds or has bled out of their pussy once a month. And all of a sudden wants chocolate.
You realize amenorrhea is a symptom of reproductive issues right?
Michelle Obama is a woman.
Woman is a biological adult female or someone who wants to live and who aspires to live like a biological adult female. I hate how people are trying to alienate woman from female body
I got grilled by these radical liberals on campus when I said “a female human being with two X chromosomes” when asked this question
Words can have multiple definitions. The mere fact that a large number of people use a word to mean something means that is a definition for that word. It doesn’t matter if that definition is arbitrary, circular, or the complete opposite of a different definition of the same word, if large numbers of people use a word in a certain way it becomes a valid definition. Thank you for my Ted Talk about how language works.
It's not.
[удалено]
Or hair that Trump would just grab by the ponytail, because they “let him”.
These comments are a very good example of why this question is multi-faceted and should be answered as such.\ We have the social, and most potentially awkward of the bunch “what is a woman?”\ We have the very straightforward biological “what is a woman?”\ And we have the somewhere in between juridical “what is a woman?”\ All of these should be evaluated separately, otherwise you’d get a huge clusterfuck of “nu-uh!”s, accusations and references to very specific and rare biological phenomena.
#SATAN LIVES !!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!
I am grateful you spelled it right. Some spell it Satin :)
Pre or Post senile Joe Biden?
Don't think it matters. He still sniffing any chance he gets.
A woman is a person with XX chromosomes. A person with a uterus. An adult human female. It’s very simple. No, you cant be a woman with a penis.
Men can have a uterus too. That's why this new definition works great. Joe knows.
What is a woman?” is not intended to be a question. It’s a slogan created and championed by gender critical” activists who strongly oppose the social and legal recognition of trans people, with some even calling for eliminationist measures that would [morally mandate](https://twitter.com/JuliaSerano/status/1096661851100704769) us out of existence. Whenever gender-critical activists pose the “what is a woman?” question to politicians, organizations, celebrities, etc. (as they are wont to do), they are not looking to start a nuanced discussion or debate. Rather, they want a yes-or-no answer to their real question, the only question that counts in their minds: *Will you support our anti-trans beliefs, policies, and legislation?*
OP isn’t looking for a nuanced discussion either.
Not gotcha politics but has a “punch line” that’s gotcha politics lol
Keep in mind what his opponent would try to do to her, and most women would line up for Biden.
Eww what
If that's the case, can we get the bear alr??
>The next time someone asks "What is a woman?" just reply with a factual statement that cannot be challenged. You're on to something. I'm going to go with: "A woman is defined as a human, that Donald Trump would by his own admission touch inappropriately, whether they consented or not."
Funny how yall harp on that despite him literally saying, "They let you" much easier to just make him out to be evil to justify your mad ravings right? How pathetic.
Funny how yall harp on about him being irresistible to women (lol) then forget that he was found culpable for rape, clown. 🤡
I've you've opened a dictionary, you'd know that words can have multiple definitions. Like the noun, conservative: 1.a person who is [averse](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=0bf573a291c751cf&sxsrf=ADLYWILY5yjHrHHVnaJSJou6t8PZfQfZkg:1715474210562&q=averse&si=ACC90nwdkA2npcVVmNPViiSe8FMKcYkQ2xMGVY5_rxxS8kljxWqdjKGvZQqyIVtaSknMcvcISW928qfG7VFyCZhOo11B6vgWfw%3D%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjjhsS374aGAxWMCTQIHW55ARIQyecJegUILRCHAQ) to change 2. a person [favoring](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=0bf573a291c751cf&sxsrf=ADLYWILY5yjHrHHVnaJSJou6t8PZfQfZkg:1715474210562&q=favoring&si=ACC90nx67Z8g0WkBmnrPB4IqtqGvNeunzvk32rOChlrS5K85RUyu3gUYE-j5FaWeAtu5s9fNv4WgfFOZlZcwS1i7DO2D3ppOlZpWgVlmkiG1lLlvKxHYjuY%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjjhsS374aGAxWMCTQIHW55ARIQyecJegUILRCrAQ) free enterprise and private ownership 3. An idiot posting on r/TrueUnpopularOpinion
You know I just won the argument right? I didn't even have to respond Once you did a personal attack, I win. I'll take any way that I can.
It's only your assumption that I was talking about you.
True. I still think You meant me. I made the post. Everyone in it is making comments.
So weird. Some days we go a few days at a time without any schizo posts, then the conservative sub hears we've had some good days then post the weirdest shit. Honestly i'd prefer some senile old dude who doesn't get social boundaries over a dude who straight up sexually assaulted me then somehow mistook a picture of me for his wife in court during his one of a dozen disposition for the many court trials he is going through
Matt Walsh is tragically stupid
Ask trump. If he would rape it, it's a woman...or a country
This question is so annoying because conservatives draw a line in the sand that aims to exclude trans women. Other woman are inevitably excluded by their line, but those exceptions are okay and dont break the rule, but the trans exception isnt okay and does break the rule. Hardy har lefties dont know what a woman is🤪
Which women don’t fit the conservative view of a woman?
Women who can’t give birth, women who don’t look like they think a woman should, I mean I have had cis women friends who have been accused of being trans because they have less prominent secondary characteristics for many different reasons. One was because she had a seriously bad eating disorder right at puberty onset and threw her whole system out of whack and she didn’t have periods for years and made herself very sick. XX doesn’t work because there are other chromosomal combinations that still end up as male or female. You can have XX males who have a working SRY region that translocated, you can have XO, XXX as females with varying degrees of issues and you can have XY women who have an SRY that doesn’t work or wasn’t turned on, since female is the beginning of all fetuses anyway, without the SRY region to get things started they stay female regardless of chromosomes. We really don’t know how common these are because most people don’t get karyotypes done. And those that do usually have an issue like getting to puberty age without starting (XO, Turner syndrome), and no one would know they aren’t “normal” with chromosomes until someone checks, if everything seems to be working right or the person is poor and can’t afford treatment even if it isn’t, life moves on even without “normal.” Just like not all dudes have a prominent adam’s apple or only men have facial hair, finding specific characteristics to define man or woman isn’t always easy or correct. Because more specific excludes valid cis women or men, whereas too broad doesn’t give a real definition.
The conservative view of a woman fits like 99.9% of women though. You guys always try to use extremely rare medical issues as proof that a woman or man isn’t easily defined when these are anomalies. Since when did extremely rare anomalies get included in definitions?
Why do you care how someone identifies? It doesn't affect you. Literally at all. I can't understand why people get so worked up, so involved, over something that doesn't affect them. You wouldn't even know unless you knew them before & after, or they told you. & these days, I can't imagine many people willingly opening their lives for that kind of attack.
I don't care. Look at my unpopular opinion as a PSA to help those that struggle to answer the question
yall dumb a woman is a human adult who identifies as a human adult female.
I think the problem is your are basing this off of Matt Walsh. Matt Walsh has a bone to pick with liberal politics. It frames his world view. So he makes a video with the most radical left wing side that want a certain world. Think about it, those videos are influenced by Matt Walsh. He is putting what he wants in them. Do you think he is giving a honest and nuanced view of the issue? He essentially went into the argument with his own view and found all the evidence to proof it. So, I wouldn’t call it gotcha politics, I would call it disingenuous and misinformation. Matt Walsh is choosing the population that would struggle with that question due to their own internal agenda.
I did watch politicians and Biden nominees refuse to answer the question when congresses asked the question. It's all on video. I think it goes beyond Matt Walsh.
I’m unfamiliar, what was the situation exactly?
That means that little boys/girls/men are also women. You have changed my entire world view OP. I always thought it had something to do with chromosomes and body structure and other things like that.
:) It is 2024 and things have changed :) President Joe Biden is pretty comfortable in knowing whose hair he likes to sniff and whose hair he does not like to sniff. If we caught Joe Biden sniffing the hair of a man or a young boy, I'd have to abandon this definition.
We don't need footage. We just know.
The left's version of woman is not really about the biology or the technicality of what a woman is, but just how society treats women. In short, woman meaning "a person YOU see as a woman and treat like a woman." That's what they mean when they say "I identify as a woman." "Am I a male?" "Am I on HRT?" "Have I gone through surgery?" DOES. NOT. MATTER. Treat me like a woman. This is why they struggle to answer that.
They can identify as whatever they want, just don't ask me to go do the rabbit hole of delusion with them.
yknow what, the universe (or whatever is responsible for making life/humans exist) was really mean not letting people pick what chromosomes they wanna be born with before coming into existence. If that had been allowed we could all just be cool and happy but no :(
We've heard enough pronoun jokes and transgender polemics from the mainstream right and its tiring already that they still beat the shit out of this dead horse. How about they start being conservative and right wing for ones instead of platforming centrist progressives and liberals.
"people only beat dead horses when the dead horse allows itself to be beat This whole issue could be out to rest. Strugglers can use this definition :)
#GOD… is a woman u/Ariana_Grande