> And then you end up with the crude, objectifying and biologically reductive alternatives to "women" like calling them "menstruators" or "breeders".

What’s objectifying is deciding that women are defined by fertility.

Keep reducing and they’re just people. Why the insistence on being a “woman” at all? What’s wrong with just being trans? Or you know, just an effeminate male or butch woman?

When I admitted I was gay I didn’t want to still be called a straight male.

I have a friend whose ovaries were removed when she was a child, and, as a result, she was never fertile. She's not trans, an effeminate male or a butch woman. This would be the case even if she did not receive hormone therapy. She's a woman, and it's not 'reductive' to separate being a woman from reproductive function or hormones.

No but that’s a man made operation. Doesn’t change the origins biological sex. I think rather than trying to change gender from the original biological meaning, maybe (like someone else here said) treat it like a religious identity.

You can have a “personality” trait of masculine, feminine, etc.

I said women shouldn’t be defined by their fertility. This is inclusive of XX women. You blindly interpreted it as an argument to separate biological sex from gender.

The comment I responded to claimed that referring to someone by a biological function such as menstruating was objectifying. I don’t think that follows, because being fertile is not a requirement to be a woman.

Further, if all that matters to you to define biological sex is karyotype regardless of biological expression, that is like a religion.

But she is still XX and was born with ovaries.

That’s irrelevant to the point. We should not define women by their fertility, therefore it is not objectifying to refer to some women by their fertility.

"We should not define women by their fertility"

Not all women can be pregnant, but a person who is pregnant is a woman.

Even if they are 46,XY with ovotestes?

Can they become pregnant? In any case we don't have to modify language for one in a billion freaks.

I have a friend who had a hysterectomy as a child because of cancer. She can't and never could have children. Is she not a woman because she isn't 'so

Not when we are talking about women who are currently pregnant.

Women are defined by being able to give birth during their fertile years if they are healthy.