The title was created to caution people about transgender matters, but it applies to human affairs generally. It will probably surprise many people to realize that transgender people are people.
Many people are absolutely sure that every human has either XX, or XY, chromosomes. They are wrong.
Many people assume that the sex assigned at birth is the result of chromosome testing. They are wrong.
Many people know that all people born with XX chromosomes develop into normal female adults. They are wrong.
Many people know that all people born with XY chromosomes develop into normal male adults. They are wrong.
Many people know that a female child will, through puberty, necessarily develop into a female adult. They are wrong.
It is true that most of these assumptions will not be challenged very often, but at the limits of philosophy, law, and sport, they will be challenged, and no honest person will be able to deny the complexity of the ensuing disputes.
Recently a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to define a woman. She declined (rightly) and declared (rightly) that the problem was the context; she gave as her reason that she was not a biologist. Her reason was absurd, out of context, and disqualifying. In the context of a hearing to determine her fitness for the Supreme Court, the appropriate answer would have been: “That is a matter that is being litigated, and will in all likelihood be taken up by the court, and consequently, I must decline to state an opinion.” The problem with her answer is that it indicates that when asked a legal question in a legal context, she does not think first of the law, but of her own beliefs.
Many people know that she was dodging (she was), and that the self-evident answer (from the dictionary-a bad place to garner debate points) is: “an adult human female”. As a definition of the word, it is unexceptional, mostly because it adds no new information. The problem is that the terms are not self-explanatory. The mere fact that the question is sure to come before the Supreme Court should caution anyone that it is not resolved. “Adult” is usually opposed to “Child”, but the parameters can be debated: a child may be tired as an adult e.g. “Human” seems pretty simple until you start to discuss abortion. “Female” is really the question that the Senator was asking, and thus, in context, that unimpeachable answer is tautological: a dodge.
The Olympic Committee has been wrestling with the question of “what is a woman” for decades. They have learned from experience that people, organizations, and countries will surely cheat when fame and fortune are at stake, and that a robust way of discriminating between women and not women is essential to any idea of women’s sport; without a robust rule for who can, and who cannot compete, you will have chaos, and the league will disintegrate. They have also learned that there is no easy answer. I do not trust the Olympic Committee, as a general rule, but unlike most of the participants in this absurd free for all, they have experience, and they have engaged seriously in the search for an answer. Therefore they are a good place to start, and if you want to discuss elite athletes, you should include elite athletes in the discussion; they know the subject better than most other people.