I’m honestly not sure I understood any of that, but I think it’s beside the point.
There’s no need to analyze Walsh’s question in any deep philosophical way because the question itself is really more of an argument.
He answers the question at the end, saying that a woman is an “adult human female.” That is, he argues, the best way to answer the question. He argues that that is the only definition that brings clarity to the conversation, and makes the term useful. And the question naturally arises…what else could a woman possibly be? And every time I read a response in which someone either fails or simply refuses to give a clear answer, it’s as if Walsh is making his point over and over and over again, without having to say a single word.
Whether I agree with him or not, It’s rather effective, I have to say.