Maya Forstater

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...

infertile women or women with no uterus do not have the potential to get pregnant, we are back at square one with this now (well ok more like square 2)

(Side note: this isn’t a substantive contribution, just as an FYI, I can’t speak for others but I *really* dislike the term intersex. It implies people like me are in between the two. I’m not.)