You brought it up. So I'm curious. Can YOU define what a "woman" is?
A adult female human, possessing two X chromosomes (XX) and is organized around the production of large, immobile gametes (eggs) for reproduction.
There is a spectrum in individuals in the biological sense, but these are known as disorders/diseases/abnormalities as they don't manifest in reproduction, if the individual is capable of it.
For instance approximately 7% of all men are infertile. By the time a woman is 30, she has lost nearly 90% of her eggs; by age 40, only around 3% of eggs are left.
Are they still not human males, and female, of course they are.
Are there outliers, certainly but this exception is what makes the rule, the exception isn't a desirable trait even if able to reproduce.
An excellent book/pdf I recommend is SpermWars. spcuniversity.com
If you read it you'll see, reproduction is a very complicated system, many parts can go wrong/fail, in the individuals, competition, and in their performance in attempting to move their genes forward in to the next generation. The idea that we need to categorize each and every possible 'failure" and create a separate class of victimhood for them is preposterous, and impossible.
But that is what you would have done.
Now you can go on and on with your psuedo science and claim all the shit you want about gender, who cares its not a scientific endeavor, it only has meaning in the political sphere.
... In a speech, he ticked through defunded outlets, ousted journalists and looming ownership changes -- then said the president is 'winning' ...
The issue, as I see it, is that the general population wants to be ~entertained~ when they view "news" media.
That's why more people have been getting their "news" from social media of late.
They want to be entertained, so they watch the social media channels that tell them what they want to hear.
Meanwhile, the news media that reports the facts seem to be losing their audience.