That's a slightly disingenuous interpretation of his post Matlock.
The fact is there is a clearly defined biological definition of a woman (and indeed a man but we are taking about women here so...).
Female
Female
1. An
individual of the
sex which conceives and brings forth young, or (in a wider sense) which has an ovary and produces ova.
Female 1. An individual of the sex which conceives and brings forth young, or (in a wider sense) which has an ovary and produces ova. The male and female of each living thing. (Drayton) 2.
www.biologyonline.com
Now given that all women are born with the organs that
@Fermoylad listed (barring any abnormalities or unfortunate defects) then it is reasonable to assert that anyone without these organs is therefore not a woman.
Also he isn't suggesting that the removal of these organs removes said womanhood (as
@SoundMan rightly points out loosing organs specific to one sex doesn't automatically assign one to the opposite sex, the opposite is also true however in that acquiring organs specific to the opposite sex to your own doesn't automatically make you that sex),
@Fermoylad was merely pointing out (and correct me if I am wrong
@Fermoylad ) the biological makeup that differentiates a man from a woman.
The fact remains those differences cannot be simply overlooked or compensated for by wearing a dress and changing your name.
Can I ask you a question Mattie just for clarity, do you believe a trans woman is actually a woman? Despite every shred of biological evidence to the contrary? Or is it a case of just showing courtesy to people? Because if it is the latter then we are absolutely on the same page but if it is the former then we are absolutely not.