You are defining a woman by her genes. So yes, I expect you to have a university degree to be able to make such an authoritative definition.
Several decades ago, the authorities on the subject regarded homosexuality as a mental disorder. Fortunately not all LGBT lay-people deferred to their judgements.
Just like I would expect you to have a degree in physics before making an authoritative definition based on properties of physics.
So I need a degree to say “E=mc2.”
Believe it or not, Facebook University isn’t a real university.
I don’t have a full definition, however, I think my parameters apply to >98% of women and >98% of those with XX chromosomes.
IIUC, your definition of a woman is a person who self-identifies as one, and currently at least, most of those who identify themselves as women have XX chromosomes, and for that matter, female genitalia, breasts disproportionately larger than men, and naturally talk at slightly higher pitches.
I also think that this will be the case for at least a few decades, though what do I know?
If someone with XY chromosomes and male genitalia wants to call thonself a woman, fine, it’s (still) a (relatively) free country, but just don’t expect me to always play along—and with that, I expect to be banned for transphobia, because not only do I don’t completely agree with the so-called progressives, but that I posted such.
Several decades ago, the authorities on the subject regarded homosexuality as a mental disorder. Fortunately not all LGBT lay-people deferred to their judgements.
So I need a degree to say “E=mc2.”
I never joined that site.
You are seriously doing the “science was wrong before” argument while trying to use science?
The whole point of science is that new ideas replace old ones when new information comes up.
I don’t think you understand what science even is.
Agreed.
Also: wp:Argument from authority.
Did you know that Trump has a university degree and Dubya Bush went to Harvard and Yale?
You keep saying irrelevant things. You also have yet to define a woman. Isn’t that interesting?
A woman is a human female.
If a person has XX chromosomes, quite probably she is a woman.
Most people who describe themselves as women have XX chromosomes.
Okay, that’s a partial definition. Now let’s hear your full one. Since you are being an arbiter, we need a full definition.
I don’t have a full definition, however, I think my parameters apply to >98% of women and >98% of those with XX chromosomes.
IIUC, your definition of a woman is a person who self-identifies as one, and currently at least, most of those who identify themselves as women have XX chromosomes, and for that matter, female genitalia, breasts disproportionately larger than men, and naturally talk at slightly higher pitches.
I also think that this will be the case for at least a few decades, though what do I know?
If someone with XY chromosomes and male genitalia wants to call thonself a woman, fine, it’s (still) a (relatively) free country, but just don’t expect me to always play along—and with that, I expect to be banned for transphobia, because not only do I don’t completely agree with the so-called progressives, but that I posted such.
“This applies 99% of the time” is not a scientific definition.
Also, I never gave a definition.
This is literally bigotry.