What is a woman?

Debunking TERF Misinformation

The argument and/or question

TERFs often demand a definition of "woman" that excludes trans women, framing it as a simple question with an obvious biological answer. Common variations include:

• "What is a woman?"

• "Define woman/womanhood"

• "What makes someone a woman?"

The underlying rationale is that there must be a definition that includes all cis women while excluding trans women (and cis men). This is, of course, virtually impossible to do. Nonetheless, TERFs will generally insist this definition must:

• Avoid reference to gender roles/stereotypes

• Not be "circular" (e.g. "a woman is someone who identifies as a woman")¹

• Center biological sex and reproductive function

However, as philosopher Talia Mae Bettcher argues, the "what is a woman" question functions rhetorically to put the burden on trans women to prove their womanhood according to dominant standards that marginalize them from the start. It assumes a single, fixed meaning of "woman" and demands trans women argue for inclusion in a category defined to their disadvantage.²

Meanwhile, we do not subject cis women to this level of invasive scrutiny or demand they "prove" their womanhood. Cis women's gender identities are taken as valid by default - it is only trans women who are forced to jump through hoops simply to have their self-identification recognized and respected.³

Julia Serano notes that both the medicalized "wrong body"⁴ model and the "beyond the binary"⁵ transgender model still presuppose the dominant meanings of gender categories. They position trans women as marginal cases that must justify their inclusion, rather than taking their womanhood as presumptively valid.⁶

Instead, Serano advocates for expanding our understanding of womanhood to include trans women from the start, not as an afterthought or special case. She calls for recognizing the diversity of women's bodies and experiences, with trans and cis women's womanhood seen as equally valid.

The Answer and/or Response

The most consistent and humane definition is: A woman is anyone who sincerely identifies as a woman.

This centers the fact that gender identity determines who is a woman, not anatomy, chromosomes, or conformity to stereotypes. As JoJoFromJerz powerfully asserts, "A woman is whatever the hell she wants to be. We get to decide."⁷

Biological essentialism fails to capture the diversity of both cis and trans women:

• Intersex people and chromosomal variations show biological sex is not binary

• Many cis women have high testosterone, XY chromosomes, or are born without ovaries/uterus - their bodies don't make them less women

• Reducing womanhood to reproductive capacity is misogynistic - a woman who gets a hysterectomy or can't get pregnant is still a woman

We don't actually use genital checks or DNA tests to determine if someone is a woman in any real social context. Gender is complex and multifaceted, shaped by social and cultural forces beyond biology.

Deconstructing TERF Fallacies

TERF arguments rely on several logical fallacies:

• False Dilemma: Insisting there are only two sexes/genders and you must be one or the other

• Naturalistic Fallacy: Claiming that what occurs in nature (e.g. XX/XY) is inherently good and defines categories

• Burden of Proof Fallacy: Demanding trans women "prove" their womanhood while assuming cis women's is self-evident

When confronted with the reality of biological diversity, TERFs often deflect by dismissing intersex people as irrelevant exceptions. But as biologist Dr. Anne Fausto-Sterling notes, "Biologically speaking, there are many gradations running from female to male."⁸

The popular counter-point to this is typically some variation on "we do not make exceptions the norm.” Except we do, all the time, and when we want to make a definition, the exceptions absolutely do matter and count as everything. It is the test that validates, or repudiates, the proposed definition. Though my attempt is not original, it does pass its own test/validation. That is to say, this definition is inclusive of all women, and exclusive of all men. This is the core golden nugget that we really need to recognize, identify, and understand. This is what makes a strong definition.

I posit that it is the only definition that is both strong and passes its own test/validation. And now that I said that, I am sure there will be someone who will comment with another different strong definition that passes the above test.

Trans identities have existed throughout history and across cultures, from Indigenous North Americans to Indian Hijra to Polynesian Mahu.⁹¹⁰ In trans subcultures, self-identification is centered¹¹. Terms like "woman" are expanded to paradigmatically include trans women, without qualification. An expansive theory of gender must recognize this multiplicity of meanings, not insist on a singular definition that erases trans perspectives.

---

The Circular Definition Problem

Some will object to our definition, calling it circular. But this definition, while seemingly round-about, is the most consistent and ethical one available. Here's why:

1. Self-identification respects individuals' inner sense of their own gender. It treats people's lived experiences and self-understanding as valid, rather than imposing external criteria on them. Circular as it may appear, this definition reflects how gender identity actually functions.

2. Many important concepts resist simple, non-circular definitions. We'd be hard-pressed to define consciousness, justice, or love without some element of circularity - but that doesn't make them meaningless. What matters is that we capture something essential.

3. Attempts at non-circular definitions based on biology or stereotypical gender roles quickly break down. They inevitably exclude many women, both trans and cis, who don't fit narrow criteria. Such a definition is virtually impossible. Insisting on non-circularity leads to worse definitions, not better ones.

We need a definition of "woman" that treats all women with dignity, reflects how gender identity functions in the real world, and centers individuals' self-understanding. Self-identification does that better than the alternatives, circular or not. Arguments should not be circular, but definitions can be. TERFs may pose the question or demand as though they are seeking a definition, but they are making an argument.

So while it may have a circular element in its phrasing, it does not seem to fully meet the criteria of a circular argument fallacy. The criterion is the important bit, and as such, the definition is not simply assuming the truth of the conclusion as a premise. If you dive into definitions a bit more deeply, you will find most all definitions are circular in some way.

That is why getting hung up on circularity is a distraction from what matters: fighting for all women's rights, well-being and liberation. Trans women are women, period, regardless of how neat and tidy our definition is. It's time we recognize that and move forward together.

---

The Real Harm of this "Debate"

Constantly interrogating trans women's identities fuels a climate of prejudice and hostility:

• It marks them as "suspicious" and subjects them to invasive scrutiny

• It emboldens harassment, discrimination, and even violence

• It props up harmful policies like bathroom bills and bans on trans healthcare

Fixating on defining womanhood in relation to a tiny minority is a cruel distraction from the sexism all women face, especially from cis men. As JoJoFromJerz notes:

"They don't want us talking about Amber Thurman or Kate Cox or Amanda Zurawski... They want us tying ourselves into knots of our own making by taking the bro bullshit bait of their distractionpalooza agenda." ¹²

These are women who were denied life-saving abortion care, left to suffer and nearly die because of how womanhood has been gatekept. Obsessing over "what is a woman" does nothing to materially improve women's conditions.

This is why the best answer to this question/tactic is simply to not engage with it on their terms. Respond with a very pithy quote from JoJo: “If you’re asking it means you don’t know and you don’t care to know.”

If you must engage with this question/tactic, turn it around and ask them to provide it. Then proceed to point out every possible exception to their definition. I feel I must give you the disclaimer that such an effort will be as time consuming as it will be emotionally exhausting, and it is highly unlikely you will change any hearts or minds that engage with you. You will leave breadcrumbs for the readers who come after, and this is something I feel is very valuable; however, this should not come at the cost of your emotional well-being.

A Better Way Forward

Womanhood is a vast and varied category. Trans women are women, period, regardless of their bodies or presentation. "Woman" describes an inner identity, not a rigid biological classification.

Our focus must be on fighting the real threats to women's rights and safety. We must stand in solidarity with the most marginalized women, including trans women, and work to dismantle patriarchal oppression in all its forms. Anything less is not feminism. Anything less is gatekeeping womanhood, and at that point you are being part of the problem, not standing up as part of the solution.¹³

True allyship means respecting trans people's self-understanding, not imposing exclusionary definitions on them. It's time to stop asking "what is a woman?" and start asking "how can we make the world safer for all women?"
That is the only question that matters.

1. This is not necessarily a bad thing per se, I explain this in a later section

2. Bettcher, T. M. (2013). Trans women and the meaning of 'woman'. In The philosophy of sex: Contemporary readings, 6th ed. (pp. 233-250). Rowman & Littlefield.
Link[PDF]: https://philpapers.org/archive/BETQWA.pdf

3. …and gender non-conforming women and non-binary folks

4. NB: This frames being transgender as a medical condition of being born in the "wrong" physical body for one's true psychological gender. While this approach has been useful for some trans people in accessing medical transition, Serano argues it still treats cis bodies and identities as the default, and positions trans people as needing to "fix" their "mismatched" body to be valid.

5. NB: This model, while seemingly more progressive, still sets up trans people as "transcending" the very categories of man and woman. Serano notes this framing positions trans women as marginal to womanhood - as outside or "beyond" the boundaries of the category itself.

6. Serano, J. (2013). Excluded: Making feminist and queer movements more inclusive. Seal Press.

7. JoJoFromJerz. (2024). What is a woman? Substack. https://jojofromjerz.substack.com/p/what-is-a-woman

8. Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. Basic Books.

9. Stryker, Susan (2008). Transgender History. Seal Press.
Link[PDF]: https://transreads.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2019-03-17_5c8eb1ebaced4_susan-stryker-transgender-history2.pdf

10. Pointed out to me by an astute reader: ““transgender” is a colonial term. Identity within the concepts of two-spirit for Indigenous to Occupied Turtle Island (North America, Canada, Mexico) and Abya Yala (Central & South America, the Andes) aka “The Americas” does not fit under the transgender umbrella. Many people make that mistake and make these attributions without consulting actual two-spirit people. There was no transgender in pre-colonial pre-Columbian tribal nations cause gender was not a binary as it was/is. Two-spirit is not trans, although two-spirit people can be, it is NOT a requirement and they are NOT the same. Two-spirit is a sacred cultural ROLE not just an “identity” - we are born two-spirit and we have specific duties, a particular way to live, a different sexuality, and it is a gender unto itself.”

11. NB: This points to the distinctive social and cultural worlds that trans people have constructed, often in the face of marginalization from mainstream society. Within these subcultures, trans people's self-understandings, ways of being, and knowledge are centered and validated. What I am suggesting here (and the cited authors) is that in these contexts, self-identification is the key criterion for gender, in contrast to dominant biological essentialist definitions.

12. See 7 Above

13. Yes, I am not happy to cut such a stark dichotomy here but I felt it appropriate. I feel very strongly about human rights issues, and trans rights are human rights. “The only thing needed for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing” comes readily to mind.