gender _politics_ are off-topic in this thread. no moralizing, only hypothesis construction/deconstruction.
this is a philosophy/taxonomy/linguistics topic... gender philosophy
Suppose I say/allege/conjecture/propose to you: "I'm a woman" -- what does that mean? As a scientist and a linguist, how can you falsify or confirm my hypothesis?
I was in a conversation about kinks earlier and this topic crossed my mind, and I noticed that I've never found a satisfactory answer to this, though I try to ask smart/thoughtful people about it. Then I wondered if I'd ever really tried a deep dive on it, or whether I just mention it in passing and no one really has the time to think it through and give the answer. So, here I put it to you, to be the academic and discover what it is that makes me a woman.
you know it when you see it? If you show me things, apples and pears, apples and pears in rectums on pornhub, apples and pears in rectums on wikipedia illustrating medical encyclopedia entries, I think I could tell you not only whether or not it's porn, but why I'm saying what I'm saying. likewise mp3s and windchimes and bird calls, I could say why something is or isn't music, if it's true that 'I know it when I hear it', all I have to do is synthesize my knowings into a working hypothesis! So, hopefully no one has the 'I know it when I see it' smoke grenade to offer for this quandary. Though I doubt you do (after all, that seems to immediately welcome the bigoted observations/judgements that people of concern for these issues wish to invalidate, so clearly that cuts no ice). But, if you think that's the case, you can still play science with me and articulate the hypothesis with its list of things you would need to see to know based on the collection of data of things you have seen and thereby known gender by virtue of.