I am not duscussing any of these points. In fact I am very much against those who are biologically male - in any way - in women's sports. Some women can be born with male traits that would prohibit them from competing in women's sports. Some sports test for testosterone levels before allowing women to complete, which is a good idea. But this is not what I am discussing. I am responding to criticism of a judge who chose appropriately not to try to define 'woman' because this is a social construct and based on biology, and a simple answer would not work. The judge seems to appreciate this. This isn't about powerful people or humiliation, or whatever. The Tennessee Republican asking for a definition is obviously playing politics and was given the appropriate anser about what a judge should do in this case. A judge cannot determine definitions. Women are rarely born with male traits, but this still accounts for almost 136 million births, and those who do not undergo sex alteration surgery early in life continue to have male traits, and some who undergo this surgery can continue to have male traits internally. If a woman with male traits identifies as a female, she is still a woman, even if partially also male. There are many like this in India. One can play with definitons all they want, but for a Supreme Court justice, this is a very important legal issue, what defines a woman. Some women are not entirely female, according to social convention and biology. They are still women, IF they identify as such, but are also a 3rd gender, given their differences from other women. I've explained all of this above, and the information is easy to locate in the links above and elslewhere.