Telling somebody what their intent is, is a terrible, intellectually lazy habit. It's also almost invariably wrong. If I didn't want to understand, why would I be talking to you at all?! Of course, there’s also a possibility, that in your arrogance doesn’t seem to have occurred to you, namely that you’re the one who hasn’t understood. And yes, sorry for my stereotypical masculinity, I know how much you gender ideologues love your gender stereotypes.😉
Also, it seems that I did understand your argument. The “bleep” metaphor wasn't too complicated, it was just unnecessarily verbose, and bad. And faulty.
Yes, for the entirety of human history "woman", or whatever linguistic equivalent, WAS and still IS (no "maybe" required) associated with adult human females. Then, as you say, some behaviours were associated with being a woman. Some were fundamental; getting pregnant, giving birth, having periods. And some were social constructs; being nurturing, cooking and cleaning, wearing makeup and dresses.
But never, not even in the bad old days, did they say that a male performing any of the behaviours from the latter category literally became a woman. It was always the former category that made somebody literally a woman. They might have said he was being woman-ly, or that he was effeminate, or even that he wasn't a "real man", but not that he was a woman. That’s new. And it’s stupid.
Yes, gender is different from sex. A baby's SEX is OBSERVED at birth with 99.98% accuracy. Its “gender” is impossible to perceive and will be a combination of male and female gender stereotypes, best described as a personality, that will change throughout its life. Agender, demigender, genderfae, whatever other nonsense words are invented, these are just childish attempts to reduce the complexity of human beings to an “identity”.
And so, we're back to your claim that in order to tell if somebody is a woman I have to "guess." This isn't technically untrue, of course, it's just asinine. If you were to meet me on the street, you'd "guess" that my ancestry wasn't pure-blood Scandinavian. If you saw somebody who was morbidly obese, you'd "guess" they had a lot of excess adipose tissue under their skin. Everything is technically a “guess.”
But your argument forces you to pretend that you’re too dumb to infer anything about human biology without a lab and a DNA sample because it’s possible you might be wrong 0.02% of the time or occasionally, when somebody has gone to great surgical and medical lengths to fool you.
Anyway, it occurs to me that I'm doing exactly what I said I wouldn't do and getting drawn into a long, boring metaphysical argument about how we can ever possibly know anything. As I said right at the beginning, your framing allows for everything to be a construct. Or, to put it another way, makes it impossible to talk about anything in any meaningful way.
So I'll hold you to do what you've been continually avoiding doing (though I suspect you'll just dodge yet again); tell me, what is a woman? Please define the word in a way that doesn't use the word "woman" in the definition. Or do you think the best way to tell is to ask everybody, male and female, whether they "feel like a woman" that day?
