What does it mean to be a Woman?

I hope we all know by now what most people mean when they say 'woman'. They refer to a Pin-up Stepford Fembot woman, a woman who can take abuse and won't question it, a woman who would respond with the docility of 'yes, sir' to all their nonsense without flinching, a submissive partner, resembling more of a servile figure, like a trained domestic pet. And, even those who consider themselves modern and progressive, when referring to a woman, physically evoke almost always a single type of body, way of dressing, appearance, style, and attitude towards their reflection in the mirror.

Being a Woman implies that you are diverted in almost all phases of your existence, from an astonishingly early age. You are redirected in how you should be, in how you shouldn't be, in the version of you that society demands and yearns for, in how you should judge yourself, in how you should behave to break stereotypes about you, and that there is only one acceptable version of a Mary Sue and nothing else will fit the mold.

During the last three years of my secondary education, I attended an all-girls school, and I can say with certainty that in all age groups, each woman was different from the others. In complexion, skin tone, silhouette, height, width, and character. Yes, one could argue that there were margins, peripheral conditions, averages, and a blurry spectrum in the physical where more women were situated than others, but to say that we were just one definition of what they call a woman is absurd. And considering the overwhelming amount of misinformation flooding current news, there's a high probability that many of us would have been 'transvestigated' or had our gender expression questioned.

What percentage of biological women from birth have a deep voice that could be perceived as 'masculine'? What percentage in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood are larger, more robust-looking, more overweight, have more testosterone, or present themselves in a more 'masculine' way than the average or common male stereotype? How many men actually reach 6 feet in height? How many have that wide bone structure, with broad shoulders and narrow hips? How many have that outstanding physical strength, or that exceptional athletic ability that is typically considered masculine?

To what extent is what's happening with the trans debate ideologically imposed disappearance?

A disappearance of a large number of women who have characteristics that would not only be considered masculine, but even larger and physically more 'threatening' than what we have typically and publicly associated with the feminine. I'm not just referring to the stereotype of the Midwestern or Soviet block lunch lady.

We act as if all women, biologically born women, cis women, were delicate and smaller than all men.

It's simply not true.

The diversity of women is lost in the statistics.

Statistically, a much higher percentage of women are smaller and have lower bone density than a much higher percentage of men. But reality is far from being as uniform as it's presented.

My point is: how do these percentages compare of the likely minority of women at birth to the percentages of men transitioning to women?

When do we talk about violence between butch-presenting roommates and trad-feminine-looking women? Or between stronger, larger women and most men?

Anti-trans arguments depend on you not noticing a false uniformity. They claim that there is a uniformity that is not real. They are falsely alleging a uniformity that does not exist, and has never existed.

And, in order to be rigorously exhaustive in our evaluation, let's take the opportunity to unravel some other statistical distortions while we're on the topic.

Two words: bathrooms and sports.

The reality is that many women, and even quite a few men, have never really felt comfortable in public restrooms, especially in poorly lit ones, with few exits or no privacy between cubicles. To say that these spaces were safe until trans inclusion was proposed is nonsense. They were never adequately designed and have always posed a high risk. Anyone with violent intentions could easily enter, and still can. Expanding the spectrum of physical complexions or hormone levels allowed doesn't change this basic situation.

If we really care about the problem, and we should, what we need to reduce the possibility of violence or aggression is a comprehensive redesign of these spaces where public and private boundaries clash, with national regulations that guarantee minimum safety standards.

A similar precedent was established not so long ago with the implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990. This legislation covers wide-ranging areas, from employment and public services to transportation and telecommunications, being particularly relevant to our focus in terms of accessibility in architecture and physical spaces, including bathrooms.

The ADA is notably detailed in this aspect, specifying precise measurements and angles in construction and design. Doors must be at least 32 inches wide. Toilets must be at a height of 17 to 19 inches from the floor to the top of the seat. There must be a clear space of at least 60 inches in diameter on the floor. And so on, with every detail. Other countries have followed this line, as shown by the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by all member states in the EU. Specific legislation regulating the design of inclusive bathrooms beyond disabilities, for basic privacy and safety, is crucial and, honestly, long overdue.



Why do we divide sports by gender? If we really think about it beyond an ingrained habitual reflex, it doesn't make much sense. We've already seen that if the pivotal factor is hormones or estrogen and testosterone levels, accounting for all types of people and physiques, as we usually do, the sports divisions should be based on these factors. Starting with weight class, as in boxing or other martial arts, and depending on the sport and what really matters, we could be more precise in our classification of competitors by categories.

Ask yourself this for each sport: 'is doping a legal and crucial aspect in this sport?'. If the answer is yes, that it's legal, then why does it matter if people have hormone levels or internal chemistry quite different from their competitors or from average levels measured in relation to their gender at birth? In practice, it's not relevant, because everyone has the ability to compete and artificially modify their own levels. But, if the sport is one of those that are very strict about what makes an athlete eligible to participate in the competition, then we must be more meticulous in how we separate and create categories according to our internal chemistry.

Whether it's the cost of updating building codes, or the paths available to earning your own economic agency, money hides behind the more obvious fears of being replaced by a caricature of someone stronger than you, or becoming unnecessary and unwanted as more unique personal stories get all the attention.

The less obvious, more pervasive ways that money influences and challenges the surface-level narrative around womanhood, are both structural and reactive. Cash rules everything around us, while its absence inflames fears of obsolescence. Bathroom laws? Follow the money. Gender roles? Economic anxiety in disguise. It's all tied to who gets paid, who doesn't, and who's scared of losing ground.

Anxiety itself doesn't discriminate. It fuels incel rage, career desperation, and relationship fears across all genders.

When the Manosphere rages online about being 'replaced,' is it about tradition or an easy power grab?

When we fret about strong women in sports, are we really worried about fairness?

We argue about chromosomes and forget about coins.

Profound access to equipment, training, mentorship, and facilities have so much greater of an effect on performance than what kind of man, woman, or slice of another identity you are. The question we should be asking first is who pays to renovate, and who profits from fear?

Cash flows beneath the surface of every gender debate.

And here, there is a big gap, because even in most cases, the funds needed to make a woman's gender irrelevant are simply not available. These conflicts are too real, with too much at stake. Raising the base level for all women, regardless of their composition, will not be achieved by excluding trans women or ignoring where the true battle lines are.