I really didn’t want to get down in the weeds on this, because you can’t reason with people who aren’t interested in the right answer unless it fits with their ideology. But I have poor impulse control.
Sometimes the hardest things to know … are what you don’t know. And if you’re not really interested in the correct answer, you don’t really have much motivation to find out. Instead, you end up seeing things as always black and white, with a clear cut answer (yours), and everything else is clearly and irredeemably wrong. You become constitutionally incapable of open-mindedness. “Often wrong, but never in doubt.” And you end up ignoring actual science. That puts you on a par with the mouth breathers crowing about Judge Jackson’s answer in the confirmation hearings. Turns out Judge Jackson’s answer was a lot more accurate than the (intentionally) uninformed realize.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/
The article is lengthy, and in places, highly technical, so I did not reproduce it here. But it outlines the complexity that can attend that “simple” question “How do you define a woman?” But, you have to have an open mind to appreciate that.
Sex Redefined: The Idea of 2 Sexes Is Overly Simplistic
Biologists now think there is a larger spectrum than just binary female and male
By Claire Ainsworth, Nature magazine on October 22, 2018