Selwyn Duke
When a conservative is asked, ‘What is a woman?’
FacebookTwitter
By Selwyn Duke
June 28, 2022

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.

© Selwyn Duke

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Selwyn Duke

Selwyn Duke (@SelwynDuke) has written for The Hill, Observer, The American Conservative, WorldNetDaily, and American Thinker. He has also contributed to college textbooks published by Gale – Cengage Learning, has appeared on television and is a frequent guest on radio. His website is www.SelwynDuke.com.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com

Subscribe

Receive future articles by Selwyn Duke: Click here

More by this author

February 3, 2026
Here’s the Truth—and it’s Not Pretti


January 29, 2026
The Democrats WILL support immigration control—at this precise point


December 29, 2025
'Battle of the Sexes' another blow against feminism and 'transgender' lunacy


December 23, 2025
Should we be defending left-wing Europe from right-wing Russia?


December 11, 2025
Citizenship Clause surreality: The Clause’s own author said it doesn’t include aliens


December 3, 2025
NY Times op-ed writer slams Whites: 'You lost;' 'Your culture sucks'


November 25, 2025
'Pride' Flag Flies (in Victory?) Over Now-purplish ex-Catholic Church in Small-town USA


November 6, 2025
Almost a Republican sweep last night—if only men voted


November 3, 2025
Beyond the cotton field: How “racist” was pre-civil-rights-era America, really?


October 23, 2025
Video: Leftist lunacy—my experiences at a Saturday 'No Kings' protest


More articles

 

Stephen Stone
This holiday season: A message to all who love our country and want to help save it

Stephen Stone
The most egregious lies Evan McMullin and the media have told about Sen. Mike Lee

Siena Hoefling
Protect the Children: Update with VIDEO

Stephen Stone
FLASHBACK to 2020: Dems' fake claim that Trump and Utah congressional hopeful Burgess Owens want 'renewed nuclear testing' blows up when examined

Tom DeWeese
Stop the Chemtrail Destruction: Here’s a bill every legislator needs to support

Steve A. Stone
An explanation – in case you need one

Curtis Dahlgren
Get a load of this, Meathead: Actual quotes by college professors

Jerry Newcombe
Is it cool to be unpatriotic? Perhaps—but it’s also ungrateful

Pete Riehm
Buffet or melting pot?

Linda Goudsmit
An open letter to President Trump

Joan Swirsky
A leftist anti-ICE fantasy

Cliff Kincaid
A scandal bigger than Epstein [VIDEO]

Tom DeWeese
The hidden war on property rights — How NGOs pressure your local officials [VIDEO]

Rev. Mark H. Creech
Truth for Our Times: A Weekly Commentary on Faith, Culture, and the Public Square

Paul Cameron
Women can’t be replaced – Are they revolting against pregnancy?

Curtis Dahlgren
Thoughts on one-child Presidents: coincidental results?
  More columns

Cartoons


Click for full cartoon
More cartoons

Columnists

Matt C. Abbott
Chris Adamo
Russ J. Alan
Bonnie Alba
Chuck Baldwin
Kevin J. Banet
J. Matt Barber
Fr. Tom Bartolomeo
. . .
[See more]

Sister sites