Maya Forstater

well if the definition of human was "has two arms", it sure wouldn't fit the category definition, so this is not a good rebuttal.

But that's not the defn of human! I can't believe that this thread which started w ppl worrying whether a transwoman wld be offended if someone suggests a woman should join a panel is now talking about whether people w birth defects are human! In real life this is not a question!

yeah, that's not the definition of human, which is why your example does not work. we are not proposing that definition of human. You are proposing the capacity to produce eggs to be the definition of woman. You have not explained how this can fail to exclude infertile women.

No I'm not. I'm saying being *of the sex* that produces eggs. Think of typical female anatomy. Ovaries not working? Still female. No ovaries? Still female. No uterus? Still female. Etc.. None of these situations are part male

so are you saying that "typical female anatomy" defines womanhood?

it sounds like you are saying you believe the definition of womanhood is "having, at birth, some physical anatomical structure that is sufficiently similar to the physical structure of a body that can produce eggs." is that right?

that's reasonably close. I don't think "sufficiently similar" is quite right though - sounds like a Tesco delivery substitution! It's more.. the fetus developed in the uterus along a M or F pathway resulting in all or some of the working parts of one or other reproductive type

If we didn't have a word to denote the class of people with the potential to get pregnant and the class of people with the potential to impregnate them we'd have to invent them...