Defining Woman

Did you ever think we would get to the place in our culture where we thought it necessary to ask political and judicial leaders to define the word Woman?

It’s happening in the US. And in Great Britain. In the US the questions are being asked mostly by conservatives. In Great Britain, long time Labour supporters (self declared socialists) are asking the same question of their political leaders.

Here are two videos documenting the facts.

First Video

The Judge can’t answer the question for two reasons. The first reason she gives: ”I’m not a biologist.” The second reason is because she says this issue might come up before her in a supreme court case. As it might.

I give her a pass on the second reason. Unfortunately, this will likely come up before the Supreme Court at some point. That’s how irrational public policy has become in the 21st century.

But, her first reason (she had to know this question was going to be asked) indicated that she truly did not know the answer. Why?

Because she is not a biologist.

This is an example of what I call credentialism. Ya gotta be an expert before you can speak about anything. But surely if any question would seem to be within the general knowledge of ordinary Dick and Jane’s out there, the uncredentialed hoi polloi, as it were, surely the question about what is a ”man” or ”woman” would be one of them. Wouldn’t it?

I mean, does it take a lot of expertise, or scientific trial and error to figure this one out?

Regular, unprofessional, dare I say, common, folk have apparently known the difference between a man and a woman for some time now. The species continues to reproduce, does it not? Even among the most “unenlightened” among us. That would seem to be a good indicator of some knowledge of the difference between male and female among the uncredentialed. Yet, a woman who would seek to be one of the most powerful women on the planet can’t answer that question.

If two men have a sexual relationship. Or two women. This has never produced children. It can’t. Surely the uneducated have noticed. And acted accordingly. I mean, if they intend to have children and allow the species to continue. This would seem to be a basic human instinct.

Woman = adult human female.

Unfortunately, this basic human understanding evades British leaders as well.

Yvette Cooper refused three times to offer a definition of what a woman is, saying she was not going to go down a 'rabbit hole'
Yvette Cooper, Labour Party Shadow Home Secretary refused three times to offer a definition of what a woman is, saying she was not going to go down a ‘rabbit hole’
Anneliese Dodds, Labour's equalities spokesman, said the meaning of the word depended on 'context'
Annelised Dodds, Labour’s equalities spokesman, said the meaning of the word depended on ‘context’

Second Video

We really have gone down a Lewis Carroll rabbit hole. Western Politicians are pedaling fantastical nonsense.

The inestimable J.K. Rowling weighs in


  • Can I answer the question: ”Is it raining?” If I am not a meteorologist?
  • Can I answer the question: ”Is it a dog?” If I am not a veterinarian?
  • Can I answer the question: ”Is it a female dog?” If I don’t identify as a female veterinarian?
  • If you can’t define ”woman” how will you be able to protect ”women’s rights?”

If anyone needs a Primer on the question of what is a Man or Woman, please read my “What is Sex” post.

Essentially, we tell the difference based on reproductive capacities.

Again, this is not about loving confused people. But you are not loving someone if you affirm their false perception of who they are. Simply attaching ”marginalized” to a person or group is not enough to decide the matter, and shutdown debate. There is much more at stake here than someone’s feelings.

Matt Walsh is known for stumping transgender activists by asking them to define what a woman is. The author appeared on an episode of “Dr. Phil” in January and asked LGBT activists Ethan and Addison just that, tripping up the activist:

“What is a woman? Can you tell me what a woman is?” Walsh queried.

“No, I can’t,” Ethan admitted, “because it’s not for me to say. Womanhood looks different for everybody.”

Speaking to Addison, Walsh stated, “You stood up here and said, ‘Trans women are women.’ What is a woman?”

“Womanhood is … something that I cannot define,” Addison said.

“But you used the word,” Walsh pushed back. “So what did you mean when you said, ‘Trans women are women’?”

“I do not define what a woman is because I do not identity as a woman,” Addison responded. “Womanhood is something that is an umbrella term.”

“That describes what?” Walsh interjected.

“People who identify as a woman,” Addison said.

Walsh, again, pressed, “Identify as what?”

“A woman,” Addison said. “What is that?” Walsh pressed.

“To each their own,” Addison said, adding that “each person” is “going to have a different relationship with their own gender identity and define it differently. So, trans women are women.”

“You won’t even tell me what the word means though, so that’s the problem,” Walsh responded.

Speaking philosophically, you’ve just witnessed radical individualism on display. According to these advocates, individuals are entirely self-defining and autonomous. Their perceived ”reality” is purely subjective, with no unimaginative boundaries. Any genetic contribution made by someone’s male and female parents doesn’t matter. Neither does God’s contribution.

The radical individualist says: ”I can be whatever I want to be!”

No, actually, you cannot.

If you think you are a bird and can fly. You cannot.

If you imagine you are a penis-having, testicle-carrying, person-with-prostate, woman. You are not.

Come down off the ledge you’ve been encouraged to leap from. Plenty of people want to help you.

Speaking theologically, and as a Christian I must, there are two components to God’s created reality. Call them the invisible world and the visible world. Or to shrink it down to a more personal level, Mind/Soul & Body. The goal of any Therapist, Christian or otherwise, is reintegration of Mind & Body. Not a fictitious, perhaps technology assisted, separation of the two.

Please see my post “Collaborating with Madness” for more details.

That post quoted Paul McHugh, former Chair of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School and psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital:

I have witnessed a great deal of damage from sex-reassignment. The children transformed from their male constitution into female roles suffered prolonged distress and misery as they sensed their natural attitudes. Their parents usually lived with guilt over their decisions—second-guessing themselves and somewhat ashamed of the fabrication, both surgical and social, they had imposed on their sons. As for the adults who came to us claiming to have discovered their “true” sexual identity and to have heard about sex-change operations, we psychiatrists have been distracted from studying the causes and natures of their mental misdirections by preparing them for surgery and for a life in the other sex. We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it.

To see how far this kind of madness can go, read my post Species Fluidity? Transpups?


As a Classic Christian I encourage everyone to “Embrace, Don’t Affirm.”

Individuals with a Gender Identity Disorder (Gender-Dysphoria) need Truth-filled Love. Please read this post for more details.