Thinking Out Loud with Alan Shlemon - Is it Difficult to Define a Woman?

Episode Date: September 10, 2023

Why has it become so hard to define a woman? Alan looks at a few definitions that are offered, explains what’s wrong with them, and then offers his own definition.

What is a woman? You know, that simple question has provoked all kinds of debate. But did Matt Walsh's documentary answer the question sufficiently? Well, that's what I want to address in the latest episode of my podcast, Thinking Out Loud with Alan Schliemann. The year 2022 signaled the start of a surprising controversy over how to answer the question, what is a woman? Now, it's surprising because until the last few seconds of human history, the answer was never in question. But with the rise of the claim, trans women are women, right? This mantra has evoked a lot of questions and doubts about

that question. And many people now seem to be in doubt about what a woman is. Now, in March of 2022, U.S. Supreme Court nominee, Kentonji Brown Brown Jackson refused to define a woman when she was asked. And her response was, well, I'm not a biologist. Well, does that presume that only biologists know the answer to that question? And what's strange about that is that many educated scientists will squirm when they're pressed to define a woman. worm when they're pressed to define a woman. Because if they give the answer, a woman is simply an adult human female, well, that would disqualify biological men who quote-unquote identify as a woman. And so, of course, being politically incorrect, well, that answer would jeopardize the scientist's reputation and, of course, possibly end their careers.

Now, numerous definitions for women have surfaced over the last several years. And what I've noticed is that these definitions fall into one of three categories. Either these definitions are circular, or they're absurd, or they're accurate. Okay, so those are the three categories. Let me try to unpack each of those three categories. So some definitions for women are circular, right? Now this mistake occurs when someone attempts to define a word, but then uses the word they're trying to define in the definition. So for example, if I was to ask you, well, define for me nuclear power, and you defined it as, well, that's just simply energy derived from a nuclear source. Well, of course, notice that's circular because the word you're trying to explain, nuclear,

is then just used in the definition. So transgender advocates often make the same mistake when they define a woman. They claim, quote, a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman, end quote. So notice that that definition is circular because after all, what is that thing, a woman, that the person is identifying as? You see, they need to avoid the term woman in their definition if they want to provide a meaningful explanation. So that's the first category of definitions is that these definitions are circular. But I want to offer you a second category of this definition because the second category includes some definitions of a woman that are absurd. Now, Cambridge Dictionary recently amended its definition of a woman that are absurd. Now, Cambridge Dictionary recently amended its definition

of a woman, and here's how they currently put it. It's, quote, an adult who lives and identifies as female, though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth, end quote. So notice in this definition, they've replaced the word woman with the word female. Now, though this averts a circular definition, it kind of creates a new problem. And that's this. Female is a reference to biology, a person who has XX chromosomes and reproductive organs that make childbearing possible. Well, okay, if that's the case, what would it

mean then for a man who has XY chromosomes to identify as a person who possesses ovaries, a uterus, and breasts when he actually doesn't, right? Notice that is absurd. This is similar to when a 69-year-old Dutch TV personality named Emil Rattleband decided to identify as a 49-year-old Dutch TV personality named Emile Rattleband decided to identify as a 49-year-old and demanded the courts change his legal age, right? He's 69, but he's saying, no, no, no, I want to be identifying as 49 years old, right? This is absurd because no amount of sincerity or hormones or surgical intervention can make him younger. I mean, don't get me wrong. He can make cosmetic changes to his body that make him look younger, but he'll never become younger. And that's because age is a biological reality that can't be changed. And in the same way,

a person's sex is a biological reality that can't be changed. A man can make cosmetic changes to his body to make him look like a woman, but he'll never become a woman. Now, the other problem with Cambridge's new definition is that a woman can now be someone who had a quote-unquote different sex at birth, right? Well, all right, What sex might that be? Male. But that means a woman can now be defined as someone who was the opposite of a woman, a man. Well, this is absurd because it makes the word woman meaningless when someone who is the opposite sex can be a woman. It'd be like saying parallel can be defined as perpendicular lines. I mean, this is such a confused definition and it reduces the meaning of words to absurdity.

Okay. So that's the second category of these definitions when these definitions become absurd. And then I have a third category. Some definitions of woman are accurate. Now, prior to the last few seconds of human history, defining a woman was uncontroversial. In fact, people accepted the dictionary definition, which was simply this, an adult human female. And so what was going on there is that they recognized that women have XX chromosomes, while men have XY chromosomes. Now, though this definition is accurate, and it's the one that in the documentary that The Daily Wire and Matt Walsh made, that's the way they kind of answer the question, what is a woman? It's an adult human female. Yeah, that's accurate, but I think it has some liabilities and I kind of want to explain

what they are. So you see advocates of transgender ideology point out that not every person can be clearly classified as male or female. Okay. Now remember this is their claim. They say not everyone is born with either XX or XY chromosomes, which, by the way, is true, right? Some people are born intersex, which is a term that refers to people who are born with atypical genetic or biological sex characteristics. For example, some males are born with XXY chromosomes, and this is called Klinefelter syndrome. Some females are born with only one

X chromosome. That's called Turner syndrome. Some women over or underproduced sex-related hormones, while others might be born without a vagina called vaginal agenesis. And so because these variations exist, it's argued that being female can't be as simple as having XX chromosomes or possessing organs like a uterus and ovaries. Now, for the record, I do not grant that the existence of intersex people somehow nullifies the sexual binary or our ability to categorize people as either male or female. Okay. People, people born with atypical genetics or biology simply represent variations within the sexual binary categories of male and female. Let me repeat that.

People born with atypical genetics or biology represent variations within the sexual binary categories of male and female. So yes, when some people are born, it's not immediately obvious whether they are male or female. And according to the National Institutes of Health, one of their studies looked at this and they found that one in 2,000 or one in 4,500 births is a child born with ambiguous genitalia. If that isn't obvious, it's a very, very small number. In other words, the vast majority of babies are born obviously male or obviously female. And it's only in the rare conditions where it's unclear at birth, yeah, we would say, yeah, they're intersex. And you might have to discover a child's sex through maybe genetic

testing or ultrasound or some other kind of evaluative tool. Now, although intersex individuals don't nullify the sexual binary, it's important though to formulate a definition of woman that can capture the wide range of variations that are present in women. sort of neat and short and tidy as the what is a woman documentary definition. But at the same time, I don't think it has the liabilities as simply saying, well, it's an adult human female, right? Because you have all these other variations, intersex variations that aren't accounted for there. So here's my definition for a woman. A woman is an adult human whose body is organized around two related functions. The first is the production, storage, and delivery of eggs. And the second is the gestation of another human being. So let me repeat that. A woman is defined as an adult human whose body is organized around two related functions, the production, storage,

and delivery of eggs and the gestation of another human being, right? So that's what a woman is. And so if you were to like now say, all right, well, what is a man? It follows a certain kind of similar logic, right? A man would be defined as an adult human whose body is organized around the production, storage, and delivery of sperm, okay? A man is an adult human whose body is organized around the production, storage, and delivery of sperm. Notice the importance of the phrase organized around, right? So yes, a woman might have atypical genetics or atypical sexual anatomy,

right? But that doesn't nullify her categorization as a woman. Even if one or more of her sex organs is missing, or maybe it's been removed, like through a mastectomy or hysterectomy, her body is still organized around the use of eggs and the gestation of another human being. Now, this definition of woman actually also has an additional benefit of clarifying the answer to another very important question. And that question is, how do we know there are only two sexes? How do we know that there's only male and female and not, say, a spectrum of sexes? How do we know that it's only male and female and not, say, a spectrum of sexes? Right?

Because some transgender advocates have posited that since intersex individuals exist, for example, you know, not everyone is XX or XY, that must mean, they argue, that there must be more than two sexes or that sex is on a spectrum. This, however, is pseudoscience. Okay? It is not based on legitimate science. We know there are only two sexes because there are only two kinds of gametes. What is a gamete? Gamete is a reproductive cell. Sperm and eggs. So those are gametes. Those are reproductive cells. Let me say it again. We know there are only two sexes because there are only two kinds are gametes. Those are reproductive cells. Let me say it again. We know there are

only two sexes because there are only two kinds of gametes that a human can produce. Either your body creates sperm or it creates eggs. There's no other possible gamete that a human body can produce. If there were a third gamete, then maybe we could say there's a third sex. But there isn't, however, a third gamete. And that's why we know there are only two sexes, male and female. Now, some people can't produce sperm or eggs either because they're intersexed or maybe they've had the relevant organs removed. But this does nothing to nullify our understanding that there are only two sexes. It just means they're born with or have had a change to their body that prohibits the development of their male or female sex organs. It does not mean, however, that they represent some other sex.

I mean, think of it this way. If a person is born without a leg, the person is born without a leg, that wouldn't declassify humans as bipedal, walking on two legs. It just means that an individual person was born with an anomaly, right? They only have one leg instead of two. Now, there's one additional objection I'd like to address as I'm kind of

defining this here. And that is that some people will reject my definition of a woman because they will say, Alan, that just reduces a woman down to her breeding parts. Now, this objection or this criticism really fails to understand that the definition that I'm offering is not intended to define everything about a woman. It's only intended to define what a mere woman is. It provides the essential characteristics that differentiate a woman from a man. Of course, every woman is more than just an adult human body female who's organized around breeding, right? Or whose body is organized around breeding.

Of course, every woman has also her own personality, has her own talents, her own relationships, and so on and so forth. And of course, she's unique among the 4 billion or so other women that are on our planet. So anyways, all this being said, I think it's just rather amazing that the definition of woman is being debated today. Okay. Because remember, it wasn't long ago that no one asked this question and it's not because no one knew the answer. Virtually everyone did. Rather, nobody really contested the answer. And so we obviously live in a completely different world now. People give less authority to external reality, to objective reality, and instead they give more

authority to their inner thoughts and feelings, to their inner perceptions. And that's why a woman can now be a man who quote unquote identifies as a woman. That such a definition though can be adopted by this sort of large swath of the population definitely signals that our culture is in complete identity chaos. However, although our culture is confused, we don't have to be in doubt. You don't have to be in doubt. In fact, you can know the truth and not be pressured into adopting modern reinventions. Look, God has made the definition of a woman clear through both special revelation,

we call that scripture, and as well through general revelation, we call that creation or the created world. And he's made her and he's made him too, male and female, he's created them. Well, that's all I have for you today. If you've enjoyed this episode, be sure to share it with a friend. And also don't forget to subscribe to my podcast on your favorite podcast app. And thanks for listening. I look forward to thinking out loud with you next time.