What is a Woman?

UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has a go at it.

UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has weighed in on the subject of penises, declaring last week that women don’t have them.

Here he is …

“Boys have a penis. Girls have a vagina.”

Sorry, that wasn’t the UK Prime Minister. That was a biologist from the 1990 documentary Kindergarten Cop.

If only the UK Prime Minister’s comment had been as clear and concise and unequivocal as that.

Rishi Sunak’s assertion that women don’t have penises came in response to Labor leader Keir Starmer’s insistence that a small number of women do have dangly bits between their legs.

More recently, New Zealand Prime Minister Chris Hipkins’ reckoned that a penis is no clue at all when trying to work out the sex of a person.

That Rishi Sunak’s comment made headlines around the world reinforces just how unserious the Western world is right now.

“UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has made a bold claim about penises amid an ongoing debate over transgender issues,” one headline said.

What a time to be alive.

Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping are making bold claims about geopolitics while Western leaders are making bold claims about penises.

And just on that … do our news media really expect us to believe that it’s “bold” to say women don’t have penises.

Is it also bold to say water is wet, and the sky is blue?

And what’s this “ongoing debate” the media are referring to?

There is absolutely zero debate going on in the suburbs about whether or not women have penises.

If I said there was an ongoing debate about whether the world was flat you’d say I was delusional. Now far be it from me to say that the most of our cultural elite are delusional but … most of our elite are completely out of their minds!

While Vladimir Putin weights up the use of nuclear weapons in his war against Ukraine, and while Xi Jinping circles Taiwan like a predatory shark, the leaders of the free world are taken up with time-wasting absurdist nonsense.

Journalist Paul Goodman had the chance to sit down for a one-on-one interview with the British Prime Minister last Thursday, and he led with this …

“Sir Keir said recently that ‘99 per cent of women of course haven’t got a penis’. What percentage would you put it at?”

Prime Minister Sunak laughed nervously before replying:

“I’ve got a slightly different point of view to him on this”.

Wait.

Point of view?

Whether or not chicks have dicks is not a matter of “slightly different points of view”!

Sunak pushed on, promisingly at first, only to become scared to actually say his “slightly different point of view”.

“I’ve been very clear that when it comes …” he began.

Those of us listening to the interview were on the edges of our seats. He was about to say it.

“Boys have a penis. Girls have a vagina.”

Nope. That was the kid from Kindergarten Cop again.

Sunak paused, hesitated, shifted nervously in his seat.

What percentage of women do not have a penis, Prime Minister?

“ … er, you know, er, on this, on this topic, I think the first …”

Someone put the PM out of his misery!

“Do you think it’s 100 per cent?” Goodman interrupted.

Sunak looked relieved that the unsayable had been said for him.

“Yeah, of course,” he muttered quickly.

And then he immediately shifted to more comfortable ground … diversity, equity and inclusion.

“But I think the first thing to say is we should always have compassion and understanding and tolerance for those who are thinking about their gender. Of course we should, right? We’re a compassionate and understanding society and we’ll always remember that.”

Two quick points …

Why would the first word you utter after agreeing that women don’t have penises be “but”?

But what?

There are no buts.

And second, why is “the first thing to say” about whether or not women have penises that we should be compassionate and understanding and tolerant?

Agreeing that 100 per cent of women do not have a penis is not a matter of compassion, or otherwise.

And no-one is advocating intolerance, except for intolerance of lies, that is.

Mr Sunak continued …

“As a general, as a, as a general, you know, as a general kind of operating principle for me biological sex is vitally, fundamentally important.”

So there you have it. The idea that women do not have penises is a general, as a, as a general, you know, as a general kind of operating principle - for me - important.

The crazy thing about this is that Rishi Sunak’s stumbling, faltering, half-assed assertion of biology is about the strongest defence of women we have seen by a Western leader.

I happen to know that a woman is an adult female. And these days, that makes me a veritable genius.

I acquired this special knowledge, now hidden from progressive elites, in primary school where a mystic – in those times known simply as a biology teacher – explained that females were distinguished by their XX chromosomes and their ability to give birth. They also had distinctive genitalia.

If only Joe Biden’s Supreme Court nominee had access to those secrets when asked at her confirmation hearing to define the term woman.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson complained: ‘Can I provide a definition? I can’t. I’m not a biologist.’

Ms Jackson is not a meteorologist either, but I bet she could tell you when it’s raining. And despite not being a vet, I guarantee she’d know a cow if she saw one.

But as for a woman? Let he who is a biologist say what defines a woman, for it is otherwise mysterious and difficult to ascertain.

It was a remarkable moment. A woman who had given birth to two daughters and who was nominated to the Supreme Court, in part because she was a woman, couldn’t say for sure what a woman was.

In just four years, the US Supreme Court nomination hearings have gone from ‘Believe all women!’ to ‘What’s a woman?’ accompanied by the sound of crickets chirping.

The level of absurdity was mind-boggling. One thing is for sure, Harvard graduates aren’t what they used to be!

But Ms Jackson is not the only substantial woman unable (or unwilling) to substantialise what a woman is.

Forty-four years after the Commodores famously sang “you’re once, twice, three times a lady” British Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper three times refused to say what a lady was. She insisted she would not go down ‘that rabbit hole’ when repeatedly asked in a Times Radio interview last year.

Ms Cooper, who released a book in 2019 entitled She Speaks: The Power of Women’s Voices now doesn’t want to be asked what a woman is because it’s all just too ‘tangled’.

As Commodores lead singer Lionel Richie might have crooned:

You’re once, twice, three times someone only a qualified biologist could possibly call a lady - though it’s really not a rabbit hole I want to go down - and I love you.

Cooper said that rather than try to define what a woman was, she would prefer to focus on preventing violence against women.

If only she knew what one was.

Here in Australia, at a Senate Estimates Hearing last year, Liberal Senator for Tasmania Claire Chandler asked a top public servant from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet …

“What definition for women do you use?”

There was a pregnant pause of the kind that follows whenever a public official in the Western world is asked this treacherous puzzler that’s frazzling our greatest minds.

What definition of women do we use? Could you maybe give us a bit more context?”

Are our political elites cowards or just plain stupid? I guess it depends on the context.

Chandler continued …

“How do you define what a woman is to define eligibility for the purpose of providing advice on women’s policy to government and ministers?”

A full 10 seconds of silence ensues as the senior bureaucrat looks hopelessly to an advisor on her right, and then to an advisor on her left, before being passed a piece of paper that she proceeds to read from …

“So … in terms of in the office for woman we recognise, ah, individuals who identify as women and that’s in accordance with the Australian government’s guides on the recognition of sex and gender.”

When Chandler rightly suggests that this means The Australian government’s Office for Women is not focused on using its funding exclusively for the betterment of biological women, the public servant sheepishly replies

“I think I can only repeat that what we do is following The Australian guidelines.”

Can you imagine the reaction of your grandparents upon learning that one day the Australian government would need to provide “official guidelines” as to the definition of a woman?

And can you imagine your grandparents reaction upon learning that the Australian government’s official guidelines were wrong?

Our cultural elites don’t know enough biology to define a woman; or to find their own backbone.

Meanwhile, the British Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, has had a go at defining women.

He told The Sunday Times …

“A woman is a female adult and, in addition to that, trans women are women,’ he said, continuing a long and proud tradition of men telling women what they are, and how they should think about their bodies.”

And then he added, helpfully …

“That is not just my view. That is the law.”

Right. 

So if lawmakers decide that donkeys are women, will the alternate British Prime Minister insist that ‘a woman is a female adult and, in addition to that, trans women are women, and donkeys are women’?

Or would the law be an ass?

Not even conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson could bring himself to properly define women when he held office.

He told the British Parliament:

“I think when it comes to distinguishing between a man and a woman, that the basic facts of biology remain overwhelmingly important.”

He thinks?

The implications are staggering.

The same politicians who insist on a woman’s right to choose, cannot – or will not – say what a woman is. 

How can people, unable to point to any objective difference between the sexes, rile against sexism?

And of what value are gender quotas if the ratios can be changed by a man choosing to identify as a woman and so be counted as one?

‘There’s no such thing as a woman. And women need more rights!’

It takes a special kind of cognitive dissonance to live in the Western world.

Gender is so deeply ingrained in our biology that they can dig up a human being buried 10,000 years ago and determine from the skeleton whether the remains are from a man or from a woman.

When they dig us up 10,000 years from now, they will easily determine our gender, but they will never in a million years understand just how stupid we had become.