As for what my views are about whether your husband is a woman, you have no idea what my views are
Yes, because every time when you have been asked to give a definition of "female" that doesn't lead to nonsense such as capturing "horse" as a chair, you provide nothing of merit.
You have been asked myriad times to actually present and defend this definition alluded to since the OP and you have failed miserably.
And yet again you prove you're a tribal zealot who sees all his outgroup as interchangeable parts. None of that ever happened.
None of what, now, has ever happened?
I am pretty sure that you and DrZ have both been repeatedly asked for a definition of "woman" that does not run foul of where you would see it go.
Please cease with the dishonesty, and get on with providing a definition which, as has been mentioned, will most certainly not stand up for the purposes you have for it.
Nobody asked me for any definition alluded to since the OP.
I have asked repeatedly. Read the thread, maybe?
I volunteered a definition without being asked -- "One of those." -- and that is quite plainly a definition that does not lead to nonsense such as capturing "horse" as a chair.
No, that isn't a definition at all. It's just an arbitrary selection of some things. You have not justified your selection of "those" as the basis for likeness, nor have you in any way defined what it is to be "like" them.
Nobody in the history of English has thought anybody who said a chair is "one of those" was implying a horse is a chair.
And nobody in the history of the English language has ever successfully managed to use such a definition to exclude something from membership, because "one of those" does not provide a basis for exclusion in the first place.
That was before you told me he has experience being female.
He doesn't. He has experience being himself.
You're the one insisting
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Your statement that he "is" something is an insistence that someone is something.
right here that he has experience being "female".
Hey, dude, I insist on nothing of the sort -- I'm just going with what you tell me.
No, I said, quite specifically,
your views about what defines "woman" would in fact define my husband as such
I did not say he was "female". I made an educated guess as to how you would classify them but YOU are the one who decided "female" was appropriate. I don't feel it is. Maybe my husband might?
What I find particularly stupid about your views on the topic are such that your views about what defines "woman" would in fact define my husband as such, and you quite pointedly made a show of insisting that his opinion is not germane...
If your husband has no experience being female then why did you make a stink about my having inferred that his opinion is not germane? Why do you, married to a man who has never been a woman, think you have better insight into how women feel than I, who get told about it day after day year after year by my female soulmate?
My point is that your own definition is inadequate. You make all sorts of declarations for others what they are or what they aren't, what is essential to them having opinions vs what isn't, when really that all just boils down to sexism, no matter who is spewing it.
I don't claim to have an insight how "women" feel.
I do claim to have an insight about how what culture tells people about how they ought to feel when in a bathroom can be rather skewed and problematic, so much to the point where people will injure themselves over such nonsense.