What do you mean that nobody finds the question controversial? I remember it being a huge controversy when the US congress asked it during Kentanji Brown Jackson's interview.
You got the order of events wrong. That was after it became a dogwhistle for bioessentialism. As a consequence of Matt Walsh.
I guess if you want to be exact, I will correct to "nobody found this question controversial before it became a dogwhistle". But the question itself is still not controversial, it's all context.
If you explain to me the purpose of the question - that not being invoking the dogwhistle - I'll let you know. Otherwise I'm not interested in playing this game with a bad faith actor.
The purpose is that in the law we have clearly determined concepts such as Women's Rights. Thus, the justice system needs to be able to determine who is or not a woman in order to do its job properly. For instance, in the UK wolf-whistling can be considered a hate-crime if and only if the receiver is a woman.
Why not just make wolf-whistling a hate crime regardless of the receiver's identity? From the responses I've gotten around here a woman is an adult. Now we're legally OK with young girls being wolf-whistled at?
Aside that we are in agreement that laws should not be gendered if we want equality (not examining whether wolf-whistling should be a hate-crime - imho it’s ridiculous it is in any context) since we live in reality and there ARE gendered laws I’ll reply to the second part of your comment.
It does exactly make the point, you are somehow trying to define what a woman is, and asking if the definition only encompasses adult human females or underage as well.
