When a Conservative is Asked ‘What is a Woman?’

By Selwyn Duke

A common way to put Made-up Sexual Status (MUSS, aka “transgender”) activists on the spot is to ask them “What is a woman?” They’ll hem and haw because their current emotion-based creed dictates that the only possible definition is “anyone who identifies as a woman.” Some sexual devolutionaries, however, may come back with what a YouTube commenter under a very clever, topic-related Babylon Bee video claimed. “Let's be real, conservatives do not have a tenable definition of woman,” he stated. “[C]onservatives don't talk about their definition of woman — they know it's not good enough.” Okay, then, challenge accepted. I’ll talk about it:

A woman is an adult member of the species homo sapiens; this means in principle that she has an XX chromosome configuration and is, consequently, genotypically and phenotypically female.

Yes, that’s a mouthful, because it’s precise. But the sexual devolutionaries would no doubt interject here, saying, “No, no! Some ‘women’ are not genotypically XX or wholly phenotypically [appearance-wise] female.”

Yet they’d have overlooked two key words in my definition: “in principle.” One learns in good philosophy, rarely taught today, that there’s a difference between something being true in principle and it being true in the particular.

For example, an apple in principle is something that doesn’t contain a worm; this definition isn’t negated by the fact that the occasional apple has a worm because the worm isn’t integral to the apple. There obviously are deviations among women from the genotypic and phenotypic female norm; it’s also obvious that they have no bearing on what a woman is in principle.

Not understanding this (not that they’d want to), sexual devolutionaries will didactically “explain” how there are more than just the two “XX” (female) and “XY” (male) genotypes, with others supposedly being the “intersex” varieties XXX, X0, XXY and XYY. While these configurations’ existence, again, has no bearing on what the two sexes are in principle, here’s what the sexual devolutionaries don’t say:

These are all abnormalities that afflict one sex or the other. Here’s the science, courtesy of WebMD (emphasis added by me):

• “Triple X syndrome (also called trisomy X syndrome, XXX syndrome, or 47,XXX) is a rare genetic condition where females inherit an extra X chromosome.”
• “Turner syndrome [X0] is a rare genetic disorder that’s found only in girls.”
• “Klinefelter syndrome [XXY] is a genetic condition in which a boy is born with an extra X chromosome.”
• “‌Although genetics are hereditary, a phenomenon in genetic alterations occurs when male babies receive an extra Y chromosome in each of their cells, resulting in an XYY combination.”

And that’s it. By the way, you can search the WebMD pages I linked to, and you won’t find the term “intersex” anywhere on them. “Intersex” is not a scientific designation, but a social one. It’s not reality, but fantasy. There are two sexes and abnormalities afflicting them, nothing more. This is much as how someone suffering with hypertrichosis (excessive hair growth. Example: “Jo-Jo the Dog-Faced Boy”) isn’t “inter-species,” but a fully human person with a disorder.

What we’re actually seeing here with the “intersex” illusion is the now-common desire to define abnormalities as either “lifestyle choices” or “normal variation.” But as G.K. Chesterton put it, “A fallacy doesn’t cease to be a fallacy because it becomes a fashion.”

People enduring these chromosomal abnormalities certainly have crosses to bear and, assuming they haven’t joined the sexual devolutionary phalanx of social engineers, deserve compassion. What no one deserves, ever, is to have all of society’s grasp of reality altered to facilitate the lie that his abnormality doesn’t exist as such because he can’t accept the truth. Warping a civilization’s sense of reality is dangerous and shouldn’t be tolerated for a moment.

Anyway, there’s the traditionalist answer to “What is a woman?” Your move, sexual devolutionaries. But I think that’s checkmate.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on MeWe, Gettr or Parler, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

Comments

[tj]

I'm surprised you haven't chimed in on the SCOTUS decisions this week: religious schools being eligible for the equivalent of vouchers in Maine and, of course, Roe vs Wade being overturned. Instead, you're making some straw man argument about what is a woman. Are you actually reading the news this week or have you spent all week perusing WebMD?

[Selwyn Duke]

Dear TJ,

Thank you for responding. First, I'm not a slave to the news and don't feel compelled to talk about an issue simply because everyone else is consumed with it.

Second, I've addressed the issues underlying the stories you cite in the past.

This said, I discussed Roe v. Wade yesterday for the first 20 minutes on Talkback; the appearance is at the top of the blog.

Moreover, I'll have at least one abortion piece published tomorrow and three coming up in the next issue of The New American magazine.

As for a "straw man argument," I don't think that means what you think it means.

God bless,

Selwyn Duke

[tj]

"Straw man" means precisely what I say it means, no more and no less.