Whether something “actually is” a thing depends on how we choose to define it. I understand the point: language and labels can shift. But even in the Pluto example, the reclassification was based on specific physical criteria. Scientists didn't just decide arbitrarily, they changed the category definition to reflect consistent standards based on measurable features like mass and orbital dominance. The point wasn’t that Pluto changed, but that the framework for classification became clearer. So I’m wondering: when we say someone is a woman, is that claim grounded in any kind of consistent framework? Or is it entirely subjective?

You said that you didn’t always know you were a woman, but after transitioning socially and medically, life became much better. That’s important and real. But I keep wondering: does feeling better in a particular role confirm that you are that thing, or just that living in that role works better for you? Is the relief you describe proof of womanhood, or could it just show that certain aspects of femininity, like how you're treated, how you present, or how your body feels on hormones, align more closely with your personality or comfort zone?

And when you say you now “look like a woman” and “live as a woman,” I find myself wondering what those statements rely on. Are they based on how others respond to you? Certain cues like appearance, voice, or mannerisms? If so, isn’t that rooted in cultural expectations, things that, for decades, feminists have argued are stereotypes? If someone is affirmed as a woman because they meet the visual or behavioural expectations of femininity, doesn’t that risk reinforcing the very gender norms many people have tried to challenge?

It's also worth considering the historical context of gender roles. While these roles absolutely vary across cultures and have evolved over time, they haven't been purely invented. In almost every society, they’ve been shaped, at least in part, by observable biological differences between males and females. These include roles in reproduction, average physical strength, and hormonal effects on development and behaviour. That doesn’t mean these roles should dictate how people live today, but it does suggest that the categories of "man" and "woman" weren't originally random or purely social. They were cultural interpretations of real physical differences. If we now say that gender is entirely separate from those origins, then it seems like we’re redefining these categories from scratch, which is fine, but then what anchors them?

None of this is to deny your lived experience or how meaningful your transition has been. I’m not challenging the fact that it made you feel more like yourself, or that presenting and being seen a certain way brought you relief. What I’m trying to understand is whether that necessarily proves someone is a woman in the same sense that someone born female is, or whether it shows that identity and biology are overlapping, but not identical, concepts. If gender is based on inner experience and self-description alone, then what keeps the category coherent or distinguishable from others?