hypochondriac

I haven't provided limited terms! All I did was ask for a definition! Either words can be defined or they can't. If I asked you to provide a definition of any manner of other things I presume you'd be able to do so yet simply asking for a definition of this particular word is in your mind too limiting? How on Earth is asking for the definition of a word limiting you? You have the entire English language at your disposal to provide any sort of definition you feel is suitable. Explain how it limits you?

"It's not as simple as providing a definitive explanation." That's not an answer to the question of what a woman is. That's telling me what it isn't.

It really has no relevance to anything. It's of significantly more concern if you were unable to define what a woman is, particularly if you are in any sort of position of authority.

OK your latest tactic to not answer the very clear question- "what is a woman" is to ask me an unrelated question to try to get out of answering. Just want to be very clear here that you have been unwilling or unable to answer a very simple question which calls into question your other answers in this area. Colinjb is unable to provide an answer to the question: What is a woman? Just so we are clear. And to pre-empt your mindless response asking me about my GCSEs again, no idea why you think something I did decades ago is of relevance to what a woman is but I was very pleased with my results. Happy to answer in more detail once you've actually answered the question.

Me: "What is a woman" You: "It's not as simple as providing a definitive explanation." So you've failed to answer the very simple question I asked and you're accusing me of not being able to get my head around your answer? It's simply evasion on your part since as I said you are either incapable of answering the question or you don't want to. I'm not sure why.

You didn't clarify your answer stop deflecting. Is your answer to the question of what the definition of a woman is that there is no definition? That's different from the answer you gave earlier where you said that you weren't refusing to answer and that a definition did exist but it was more complex than the definition I had.

The info in the public domain makes it likely the dsd in question is 5-ARD which is the same condition that caster semenya has. In male foetuses internal testes are formed and produce testosterone (hence the raised testosterone levels that got the banned in the first place) but the extra step to another hormone is missing so external male structures aren't formed

So your answer to what the definition of a woman is is that there is no definition? Seriously?

Reports online suggest that the person in question has testicles and XY chromosones. Someone with testicles and XY chromosones is a biological man regardless of what DSD they possess that may give them an outward appearance of a woman. Do you want to help out colinjb? He seems to have difficulty providing the definition of a woman just like you have.

Interesting that you're asking me questions yet you can't or won't provide a definition of a woman. What is it about it that you find so difficult? You don't have to deflect, just answer the question. Can't be that difficult surely?

Was Pinder the model?

Hold on you're saying a definition isn't possible now? Or you could provide me with a "more educated" definition but are choosing not to? You're suggesting it does me no credit because I asked you for a definition of a word? Asking for a definition is wrong because that isn't providing enough nuance? Eh?

Maybe. Still not a fan. She's brilliant, her race isn't relevant.

Worth noting that you call me wrong in the manner of a biologist abd an idiot yet you can't even provide a definition of a woman...

Was great. Loads of our gold medals have been quite dramatic.

No Colinjb. For the sake of argument I was agreeing with you telling me that my definition was simplistic. You're just making yourself look silly now. I'm giving you the opportunity to give me what your definition is seeing as you believe mine is simplistic and you're doing everything you can not to give one. Let's be honest it's because you either don't have a definition of or you know that anyone you do have will make yourself look silly. What's your definition?

You're not refusing to answer but you haven't answered? You've told me what it's not which is that it's not black and white or simplistic but I still haven't had an answer of what it is. Come on Colinjb surely it's not that difficult to provide a definition? What is a woman?

Sounds to me like you're refusing to answer. Can't be that difficult to answer surely? Fair enough it's more complex than my simplistic worldview so what is the definition then? Educate me.

What's the answer then?

What is a woman?

Assume you'll be advocating for an X on passports. Clown world.

Not sure it's true but if it is he could well have been radicalised by online material or from a migrant for all we know so it very much coukd be an imported issue. Not convinced this is correct in this case though like I said. The police wouldn't have a reason to lie about it not being terrorism related because it would just come out if it was and the reaction would be worse.

Incorrect as usual. I was talking about a narrative from different media outlets and separately I was also talking about labour which is relevant because they are the party in power who recently did a big press conference to talk about the far right.

What a shame that someone uses their moment of triumph to try to divide along racial lines. It's such a peculiarly American thing. I don't think you'd see the same from a British athlete.