I'm not so sure about this line of reasoning. By way of comparison, let's consider the definition of a human. We might say that a human is a bi-pedal primate with a highly advanced brain, ability to reason, opposable thumbs etc.

Yet we know that there are humans who are missing legs, some have no hands, some are not intelligent. Would it follow, then, that a human cannot or should not be clearly defined? Or would it follow that whether or not someone is human is a matter of personal choice?

The question of "what is a woman" is very important simply from a sense making perspective. It is meaningless to say that a man can become a woman, for instance, without being able to define what it is that he will become when and if he does make such a choice.

When Walsh asks the question he is not asking what it means to be a woman. Nor is he asking what a woman's role should be. He is asking it in the most basic, literal sense--the way a curious child, or an alien from another planet who knows nothing about humans might ask it.

And it got me thinking...what is a woman? Like...really. When you stop and think about it, especially in the context of our current cultural discussion, it's a fascinating question.

I think I've come to a conclusion. But I'd be curious to hear your answer.