Removed by mod
I mean great in what way? Great at looking into the empty mind of a conservative grifter? The scene of that researcher trying to explain the intricacies of gender identity and expression, and Matt Walsh zoning out to classical music will be stuck with me forever
IMO those researchers should be able to easily explain what is a woman or any of those asked definitions, but somehow they are just stuck in a loop of a circular definitions… thats pretty much says to me, they are no researchers but charlatans…
And you would be wrong. It’s almost impossible to narrow down a definition to something that includes everything that is, and excludes everything that isn’t. The entire point behind gender identity and expression is that human beings are extremely complex, and the things we attribute to biological sex are almost all sociologically constructed. Trying to rigidly define a woman will inevitably exclude those who even conservatives would consider traditionally consider woman. As such, a deep look into gender theory is needed to understand how we categorize people into different genders.
Thats not true.
The entirety of sciences is based on generalizations of stuff by their common denominating parameters, despite the outliers. This includes chemistry, physics,…
Generally in biology, the female are usually characterized as the sex producing immobile ova and the males producing mobile sperm. The outliers, which due to some mutation or other reason doesnt fit that description, doesnt change the definition, they are simply described as outliers.
Its now also indicated by studies, that those intersex outliers in humans are mostly caused by endocrine disruptors during pregnancy but also during later life: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.4137/EHI.S39825
