If you've interacted with trans ideologues, you've probably seen them flail at the question: What is a woman? You may have seen them hide behind WhatIsAWomanBot, claiming that it demolishes this line of attack (that of asking for a definition). So does it? Of course not. 1/x

Some background: a woman is an adult human female; female being the sex that produces ovum, distinct from males who produce sperm. These are physicals traits, and "trans women" lack them. 2/x

The TRAs will point out here that lots of women don't produce eggs, due to disorders or menopause. But sex is a category, with individual variations. Ask the TRAs whether post-menopausal women are still mammals, and why, if they can't produce milk or bear live young. 3/x

So how do TRAs get around the fact that "woman" is an expression of a physical, biological reality? By ignoring it. They claim trans women are women, because "a woman is anyone identifying as a woman." But that's not a definition, its a circle. 4/x

So how does the WhatIsAWomanBot resolve TRAs pretending that anyone can be a woman, so from a practical point of view, there is no such thing as women? By pretending there is no such things as female. I know, right - but that's really the argument. 5/x

The bot claims trans women are women because: - Women are adult human females - Female is simply gender identity one can choose But here it falls apart... 6/x

The given definition of female: "having a gender identity that is the opposite of male". I guess we need to look at the definition of male to really understand what females are: "male: having a gender identity that is the opposite of a female" it's just another circle. 7/x

But that definition is in the dictionary, so it's fair to ask how the bot distinguishes males from females. It can't answer that question. Worse, it claims *there is no answer* to how males and females differ. So how can it claim trans women are women? It can't - but does. 8/x

So we've established that the WhatIsAWomanBot can't answer the question of what a woman is, and will admit to that if you dig deeply enough. But maybe the bot has insights into the nature of gender that are helpful. It does not. Its basic definition is the usual pablum: 9/x

The idea that men & women are just social roles is nonsense. "Woman" is not Schrödinger's gender, real or not based solely on the observer. But if true, it means that whole societies agree on the roles/traits of women. Can the bot tell us those? No. It denies they exist. 10/x

And this is where the WhatIsAWomanBot finally self-destructs. It claims gender is these socially constructed roles. etc. but then states that a woman can still be a woman if she adheres to *none* of those things. Both things *cannot* be true. The bot had no answer to that. 11/x

Be prepared that if you point out the ways that the bot is broken or relying on circular definitions, the creator will likely eventually chime in to accuse you of not understanding how definitions work, to dodge the reality that circular definitions are meaningless. 12/x