The bottom line is, gender critical people love the question; define what a woman is. Yet these questioners can not provide an definition that works in a practical way.
There are only two reproductive pathways which all mamals develop along: Female and Male. Under normal circumstances the female body is the one set up to create large gametes, the male small gametes.
And if you think that this simple observable scientific fact reduces women to body parts, that just means you don't think much of women.
Make it about external genitalia and there are holes (oh heck!) in the argument.
People born with missing or ambiguous genitalia are still female or male. Folks with dsd's are still either male or female.
Make it about gametes; well we don't all have them.
Infertile people still have a sex.
Make it about chromosomes; too many of us don't fit.
People with dad's are still male or female. As are Down's Syndrome people.
Make it about breast size; err nope.
Nobody has ever said the size of your boobs defines your sex. Literally nobody.
Make it about vocal range? nope too much variation.
Again. Never been a thing. People have all sorts of voice pitches.
Hormones? That doesn't work either. Some women have more testosterone that some men. Some men have more oestrogen than women.
Yes, obviously. Men with low testosterone and artificial female hormones aren't women. We agree at last.
Birth certificates? Problems here too.
Of course there are. A piece of paper can't change your sex in real life. It's a fiction.
So in practical terms, when it comes to policing people and checks - to be clear something that as a woman I will resist - who is going to do it, where are they going to do it, and what are they going to be checking for. Or are we heading for a system of pink triangle armbands?
Appropriating the Holocaust. Classy.
