My definition of woman absolutely does NOT exclude menopausal or prepubertal females.
It does if your definition is supposed to be scientific. A scientific definition must be rigorous, in a way that a casual definition need not be.
And your argument re: falsifiability is in error. You want me to include some sort of state-dependent element, which is neither rational nor necessary.
Consider that a table can be defined a piece of furniture with a flat top and one or more legs, providing a level surface on which objects may be placed, and that can be used for such purposes as eating, writing, working, or playing games.
That definition is fine for casual use, but it's valueless as a scientific definition.
It's not really necessary to have a scientific definition of what is and is not a table (or, indeed, what is or is not a woman), unless people are making stupidly absolute claims that require such rigour, such as "All furniture is either a table OR a chair, with no furniture being both or neither"; or "There are only two sexes among humans - male and female. No human is any other sex, nor is any human both sexes, nor is any human some in-between sex".
When such a controversial and definitive statement is made, it can only be supported if you have a rigorous scientific definition of what the key words mean. Casual usage and meaning is subjective, so for the claim to be objectively true, an objective definition is absolutely required.
Scientific rigour isn't optional, and cannot be replaced with "common sense", without becoming mere opinion - and likely wrong.
You have expressed your opinion. You are being asked to support it. Instead you're asking for your definition to be corrupted (because it excludes a large population your common sense tells you must be included), and at the same time you're asking for that definition to be considered pristine, even after you messed it up.
Each individual's sex is ultimately determined by the type of gamete around which their reproductive anatomy is arranged. Even people with DSDs have anatomies that are ultimately arranged around the production of sperm or the production of ova... even if they are not able to actually produce those gametes.
A rigorous definition would say something that can be used as a test against any individual. For example:
1) Does this individual produce spermatozoa? If so, they are in the "male" category.
2) Does this individual produce ova? If so they are in the "female" category.
The problem (as you are clearly aware; indeed, you pointed it out yourself) is that this rubric puts most individuals into neither category. That's only a problem if you are adamant that every human must fit into one or the other, but not both; It's a problem of your own making, that derives from your heartfelt beliefs. Those beliefs appear, as a result of the vast number of people who fit neither category, to be false. So you must either be wrong, or change your beliefs, or change your definition.
You propose to do the latter, but you apparently can't do so without introducing some subjective appeal to "common sense". According to the scientific process that you claim to be following, that's a foul play - you need to either find a way to objectively test for membership of "male" and "female" that leads to zero overlap between these categories and zero humans who fall into neither; Or to accept that your argument is subjective and opinionated, and is not a scientific or objective argument at all.
I am more than happy to change my position to one of unreserved support for your claim; All you need do is provide a test or set of tests that divides all humans into two categories without overlap, and that does so without defining as "male" anyone who is in your opinion "obviously female" (eg post menopausal women), or vice-versa.
Instead of attempting to refine your definition to provide such a set of objective testing criteria, you are appealing to "common sense" or "obviousness" or other forms of subjectivity. That makes me strongly suspicious that you in fact have no such definition available, and that therefore your claim that "There are only two sexes among humans - male and female. No human is any other sex, nor is any human both sexes, nor is any human some in-between sex" isn't based on a scientific understanding of human biology at all.
It's just your opinion, and it's false for all objective definitions of which I am aware; You need to either concede that fact, or provide the definition that will change my mind.
Tell you what: You bring me an individual with patchwork anatomy and we can evaluate them on a case-by-case basis. Hell, we can even let them decide for themselves if they want to be categorized as male or female.
At least one medical paper has already been presented in this thread that describes just such an individual.
But all of those extraordinarily rare medical conditions have zero bearing on either the definition of male and female, nor on the development of law and policy that addresses the sexes as separate from one another.
Maybe, maybe not; That's a function of whether you're being scientific and rigorous, or just using your subjective judgment to form those definitions. But they DO render this claim false:
There are only two sexes among humans - male and female. No human is any other sex, nor is any human both sexes, nor is any human some in-between sex.
You are mostly correct in general. Outliers are fairly uncommon. But that's insufficient to render your absolute claim correct in the specific, because you clearly claim that outliers do not exist
at all.
Few > Zero, for all non-zero values of Few.
Which is a big problem for your absolute claim.
www.livescience.com
