From the other direction…

I refuse to be defined as a woman solely by my reproductive biology. Being ‘female’ is not what makes me a woman. Nor does being a mother. — Rayya Ghul (@RayyaGhul) December 20, 2019

It is though. Being female, aka having a female body, is what makes her a woman. It’s what follows from that that is a choice, and that should be a free choice.

It opens up the notion of ‘the weaker sex’, of the unsuitability of women’s bodies for certain jobs, of the right of others to police our bodies. This is why the ultra right conservatives have also latched on to biology for their anti-trans arguments creating an unholy alliance. — Rayya Ghul (@RayyaGhul) December 20, 2019

But that’s there anyway. We deal with it via rights, justice, arguments, regulations, organization. We don’t deal with it by saying “Look, some women have male bodies, therefore you can’t say women aren’t as strong as men!”

Once you allow women to be solely defined by biology you take away the years of equality and liberation struggles & successes that were founded on being seen as equal humans, co-workers, citizens, politicians and that our reproductive role should not be an obstruction to equality — Rayya Ghul (@RayyaGhul) December 20, 2019

No. It’s not “policing women’s bodies” to say that men are not women, because the bodies in question are not women’s bodies. It’s not “policing women’s bodies” to say that people with penises don’t get to take over feminism by announcing that they are women.

And it’s tortured reasoning to say that you can’t struggle for equality and liberation if you “allow women to be solely defined by biology” when the whole point of feminism is that having female biology doesn’t make people inferior or subordinate.

It’s fair to say that biology doesn’t exhaust the meaning of “woman” but it’s absurd to say that biology is not relevant to the meaning of “woman.” Biology may not be sufficient but it damn well is necessary.