Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- what-is-woman [2024/12/25 22:38] – pitt
+++ what-is-woman [2026/02/01 15:13] (current) – valah
@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 ===== The argument and/or question =====
 Anti-Trans Activists (ATAs - a.k.a. TERFs) often demand a definition of "woman" that excludes trans women, framing it as a simple question with an obvious biological answer. Common variations include:
-  * "What is a woman?"
+  *     "What is a woman?"
+  *     "Define woman/womanhood"
-  * "Define woman/womanhood"
+  *     "What makes someone a woman?"
-  * "What makes someone a woman?"
-The underlying rationale is that there must be a definition that includes all cis women while excluding trans women (and cis men). This is, of course, virtually impossible to do. Nonetheless, TERFs will generally insist this definition must:
+The underlying rationale is that there must be a definition that includes all cis women while excluding trans women (and cis men). This is, of course, virtually impossible to do. Nonetheless, Anti-Trans Activists will generally insist this definition must:
-  * Avoid reference to gender roles/stereotypes
+  *     Avoid reference to gender roles/stereotypes
+  *     Not be "circular" (e.g. "a woman is someone who identifies as a woman")[(NB1)]
+  *     Center biological sex and reproductive function
-  * Not be "circular" (e.g. "a woman is someone who identifies as a woman")1
+However, as philosopher Talia Mae Bettcher argues, the "what is a woman" question functions rhetorically to put the burden on trans women to prove their womanhood according to dominant standards that marginalize them from the start. It assumes a single, fixed meaning of "woman" and demands trans women argue for inclusion in a category defined to their disadvantage.[(Bettcher2013)]
-  * Center biological sex and reproductive function
+Meanwhile, we do not subject cis women to this level of invasive scrutiny or demand they "prove" their womanhood. Cis women's gender identities are taken as valid by default - it is only trans women who are forced to jump through hoops simply to have their self-identification recognized and respected.[(NB2)]
-However, as philosopher Talia Mae Bettcher argues, the "what is a woman" question functions rhetorically to put the burden on trans women to prove their womanhood according to dominant standards that marginalize them from the start. It assumes a single, fixed meaning of "woman" and demands trans women argue for inclusion in a category defined to their disadvantage.2
+Julia Serano notes that both the medicalized "wrong body"[(NB3)] model and the "beyond the binary"[(NB4)] transgender model still presuppose the dominant meanings of gender categories. They position trans women as marginal cases that must justify their inclusion, rather than taking their womanhood as presumptively valid.[(Serano2013)]
-Meanwhile, we do not subject cis women to this level of invasive scrutiny or demand they "prove" their womanhood. Cis women's gender identities are taken as valid by default - it is only trans women who are forced to jump through hoops simply to have their self-identification recognized and respected.3
-Julia Serano notes that both the medicalized "wrong body"4 model and the "beyond the binary"5 transgender model still presuppose the dominant meanings of gender categories. They position trans women as marginal cases that must justify their inclusion, rather than taking their womanhood as presumptively valid.6
 Instead, Serano advocates for expanding our understanding of womanhood to include trans women from the start, not as an afterthought or special case. She calls for recognizing the diversity of women's bodies and experiences, with trans and cis women's womanhood seen as equally valid.
@@ Line 30: / Line 27: @@
 The most consistent and humane definition is: A woman is anyone who sincerely identifies as a woman.
-This centers the fact that gender identity determines who is a woman, not anatomy, chromosomes, or conformity to stereotypes. As JoJoFromJerz powerfully asserts, "A woman is whatever the hell she wants to be. We get to decide."7
+This centers the fact that gender identity determines who is a woman, not anatomy, chromosomes, or conformity to stereotypes.
+As JoJoFromJerz powerfully asserts, //"A woman is whatever the hell she wants to be. We get to decide."//[(JoJoFromJerz2024)]
 Biological essentialism fails to capture the diversity of both cis and trans women:
-Intersex people and chromosomal variations show biological sex is not binary
+      * Intersex people and chromosomal variations show biological sex is not binary
+  *     Many cis women have high testosterone, XY chromosomes, or are born without ovaries/uterus - their bodies don't make them less women
+  *     Reducing womanhood to reproductive capacity is misogynistic - a woman who gets a hysterectomy or can't get pregnant is still a woman
+    We don't actually use genital checks or DNA tests to determine if someone is a woman in any real social context. [[what-is-gender|Gender]] is complex and multifaceted, shaped by social and cultural forces beyond biology.
-Many cis women have high testosterone, XY chromosomes, or are born without ovaries/uterus - their bodies don't make them less women
+===== Sex and Gender: Understanding the Categorical Distinction =====
-Reducing womanhood to reproductive capacity is misogynistic - a woman who gets a hysterectomy or can't get pregnant is still a woman
+A critical point often obscured in this debate: woman/man are not the same as female/male.
-We don't actually use genital checks or DNA tests to determine if someone is a woman in any real social context. [[what-is-gender|Gender]] is complex and multifaceted, shaped by social and cultural forces beyond biology.
+      * Female/Male = biological sex descriptors. These describe biological characteristics on various spectra (chromosomes, hormones, reproductive anatomy, etc.). Biology is rarely binary and operates on spectrums.
+  *     Woman/Man = gendered social categories. These refer to a person's participation in a gendered social identity. They are socially constituted, participatory categories determined by sincere self-identification with that gender.
+This distinction is philosophically crucial because it allows us to understand that:
+  *
+  *     A trans woman is a woman regardless of whether she is biologically "female" by any particular metric - because these are different category systems.
+  *     You can have a "male woman" (someone who sincerely identifies as a woman but is biologically male) or a "female man" (someone who sincerely identifies as a man but is biologically female). Sex and gender are orthogonal variables, not dependent on one another.
+  *     Pre-op and post-op trans women are equally women. The definition of "woman" does not hinge on biological sex characteristics - it hinges on sincere gender identification.
+When someone argues "trans women are not female," they may be making a different categorical claim than "trans women are not women." These require different answers, and conflating them is philosophically imprecise. The important point: //trans women are women//, period.
+===== What Makes a Strong Definition? =====
+A strong definition is one that:
+  *     Has a clear qualifier - a criterion that determines membership
+  *     Can be tested against that criterion
+  *     Passes its own test - it successfully includes all members of the category and excludes all non-members
+Our definition meets these criteria:
+  *     Qualifier: Sincere identification with the gendered category "woman"
+  *     Test: Does it include all women (cis, trans, non-binary-identifying-as-women, etc.) and exclude all non-women (cis men, trans men, non-binary people who don't identify as women)?
+  *     Result: Yes, it passes. //This is the core golden nugget that we really need to recognize, identify, and understand. This is what makes a strong definition.//
+The definition is inclusive of //all// women and exclusive of //all// men. When critiquing any proposed definition of "woman," the exceptions are not irrelevant edge cases - they are the test that validates or repudiates the definition.
+===== Convergence: Multiple Valid Philosophical Approaches =====
+In exploring how to define "woman" rigorously, some folks propose alternative frameworks that, while phrased differently, arrive at remarkably similar conclusions.
+One such approach leverages Serano's concept of "subconscious sex" - defined as "an unconscious and inexplicable self-understanding regarding what sex one belongs to or should be." Using this concept, some propose the definition: //"A woman is an adult human whose subconscious sex is female."//
+This approach uses a thought experiment as a diagnostic tool: if you woke in a body of a different sex with a button to change back permanently, would you press it? Your honest answer supposedly reveals your subconscious sex, and therefore whether you are a woman.
+But let's trace this to its logical endpoint. What is this thought experiment actually measuring? When you answer "no, I wouldn't press the button," what are you doing? You are identifying at the deepest level with being a particular sex. You are expressing a fundamental, genuine self-understanding about your gender.
+In other words: subconscious sex ultimately reduces to sincere, fundamental self-identification - it's self-identification at an unconscious, deep level rather than surface-level conscious declaration.
+So the definition "A woman is an adult human whose subconscious sex is female" ultimately reduces to: "A woman is someone whose deep, fundamental self-identification is female," which is functionally identical to: "A woman is anyone who sincerely identifies as a woman."
+Both approaches:
+  *     Include all women (cis and trans) and exclude all non-women
+  *     Pass their own tests
+  *     Center self-understanding rather than external criteria
+  *     Recognize that gender identity is what makes someone a woman
+Different framings can capture the same truth. The philosophical work matters more than the specific language used. What unites these approaches is the recognition that gender identity is fundamental to gender.
+===== How This Definition Handles Gender Diversity =====
+One might ask: doesn't this definition create problems for non-binary and gender-fluid people?
+The answer is no - it actually handles them elegantly:
+  *     Non-binary people do not sincerely identify as women (or men). The definition naturally excludes them from the category "woman" without requiring special explanation or exceptions.
+  *     Gender-fluid people may sincerely identify as women at some times, as men at others, and as non-binary or other identities at still others. They move between categories as their sincere identification shifts. This is not a flaw in the definition - it correctly reflects how gender identity works for these individuals.
+    Questioning and exploring people may not yet have settled on a sincere identification. That is part of self-discovery, and it is valid. Communities of non-binary and gender-fluid people are particularly equipped to welcome those in flux, offering space for exploration without premature categorization.
+The point is not to police or validate anyone's self-discovery process, but to respect it.
 ===== Deconstructing TERF Fallacies =====
@@ Line 46: / Line 108: @@
 TERF arguments rely on several logical fallacies:
-False Dilemma: Insisting there are only two sexes/genders and you must be one or the other
+   *    False Dilemma: Insisting there are only two sexes/genders and you must be one or the other
+  *     Naturalistic Fallacy: Claiming that what occurs in nature (e.g. XX/XY) is inherently good and defines categories
+  *     Burden of Proof Fallacy: Demanding trans women "prove" their womanhood while assuming cis women's is self-evident
-Naturalistic Fallacy: Claiming that what occurs in nature (e.g. XX/XY) is inherently good and defines categories
+When confronted with the reality of biological diversity, TERFs often deflect by dismissing intersex people as irrelevant exceptions. But as biologist Dr. Anne Fausto-Sterling notes, //"Biologically speaking, there are many gradations running from female to male."//[(Fausto-Sterling2k)]
-Burden of Proof Fallacy: Demanding trans women "prove" their womanhood while assuming cis women's is self-evident
+The popular counter-point to this is typically some variation on "we do not make exceptions the norm." Except we do, all the time, and when we want to make a definition, the exceptions absolutely do matter and count as everything. It is the test that validates, or repudiates, the proposed definition. Though my attempt is not original, it does pass its own test/validation. That is to say, this definition is inclusive of //all// women, and exclusive of //all// men. //This is the core golden nugget that we really need to recognize, identify, and understand. This is what makes a strong definition.//
-When confronted with the reality of biological diversity, TERFs often deflect by dismissing intersex people as irrelevant exceptions. But as biologist Dr. Anne Fausto-Sterling notes, "Biologically speaking, there are many gradations running from female to male."8
+I posit that it is the //only// definition that is both strong and passes its own test/validation. And now that I said that, I am sure there will be someone who will comment with another different strong definition that passes the above test.
-The popular counter-point to this is typically some variation on "we do not make exceptions the norm.” Except we do, all the time, and when we want to make a definition, the exceptions absolutely do matter and count as everything. It is the test that validates, or repudiates, the proposed definition. Though my attempt is not original, it does pass its own test/validation. That is to say, this definition is inclusive of all women, and exclusive of all men. This is the core golden nugget that we really need to recognize, identify, and understand. This is what makes a strong definition.
+Trans identities have existed throughout history and across cultures, from Indigenous North Americans to Indian Hijra to Polynesian Mahu.[(Stryker2k8)][(NB5)] In trans subcultures, self-identification is centered[(NB6)]. Terms like "woman" are expanded to paradigmatically include trans women, without qualification. An expansive theory of gender must recognize this multiplicity of meanings, not insist on a singular definition that erases trans perspectives.
-I posit that it is the only definition that is both strong and passes its own test/validation. And now that I said that, I am sure there will be someone who will comment with another different strong definition that passes the above test.
+===== The Circular Definition Problem =====
-Trans identities have existed throughout history and across cultures, from Indigenous North Americans to Indian Hijra to Polynesian Mahu.910 In trans subcultures, self-identification is centered11. Terms like "woman" are expanded to paradigmatically include trans women, without qualification. An expansive theory of gender must recognize this multiplicity of meanings, not insist on a singular definition that erases trans perspectives.
+Some will object to our definition, calling it circular. But this objection fundamentally misunderstands what circularity means in definitions versus arguments.
-===== The Circular Definition Problem =====
+Arguments should not be circular. A circular argument - one that assumes its conclusion as a premise - is a logical fallacy. "Women are women because women are women" would be circular reasoning.
-Some will object to our definition, calling it circular. But this definition, while seemingly round-about, is the most consistent and ethical one available. Here's why:
+Definitions, however, can and often are circular. Most important concepts resist non-circular definitions. Consider:
-Self-identification respects individuals' inner sense of their own gender. It treats people's lived experiences and self-understanding as valid, rather than imposing external criteria on them. Circular as it may appear, this definition reflects how gender identity actually functions.
+**Love:** How would you define love without reference to how love feels, or what love causes us to do? Any definition of love circles back on itself.
-Many important concepts resist simple, non-circular definitions. We'd be hard-pressed to define consciousness, justice, or love without some element of circularity - but that doesn't make them meaningless. What matters is that we capture something essential.
+**Consciousness:** Try defining consciousness without some reference to the quality of being conscious.
-Attempts at non-circular definitions based on biology or stereotypical gender roles quickly break down. They inevitably exclude many women, both trans and cis, who don't fit narrow criteria. Such a definition is virtually impossible. Insisting on non-circularity leads to worse definitions, not better ones.
+**Justice:** What definition of justice doesn't ultimately refer back to justice itself?
-We need a definition of "woman" that treats all women with dignity, reflects how gender identity functions in the real world, and centers individuals' self-understanding. Self-identification does that better than the alternatives, circular or not. Arguments should not be circular, but definitions can be. TERFs may pose the question or demand as though they are seeking a definition, but they are making an argument.
+**An oak tree:** Defined as a tree grown from an acorn. What is an acorn? The seed of an oak tree. Circular, but perfectly valid and useful.
-So while it may have a circular element in its phrasing, it does not seem to fully meet the criteria of a circular argument fallacy. The criterion is the important bit, and as such, the definition is not simply assuming the truth of the conclusion as a premise. If you dive into definitions a bit more deeply, you will find most all definitions are circular in some way.
+These are all circular in phrasing, yet they are strong definitions because they have qualifiers and pass their own tests. The circularity is not a flaw - it is characteristic of how participatory and fundamental categories work.
+Our definition - "A woman is anyone who sincerely identifies as a woman" - has a crucial qualifier: sincere identification. This is not performative identification, not surface-level declaration, but genuine self-understanding. The qualifier prevents the definition from collapsing into meaninglessness.
+Moreover, the definition works because:
+  * It respects individuals' inner sense of their own gender, treating people's lived experiences and self-understanding as valid rather than imposing external criteria on them.
+  * It reflects how gender identity actually functions in the real world - as a participatory social category constituted by sincere identification.
+  * Attempts at non-circular definitions based on biology or stereotypical gender roles quickly break down, inevitably excluding many women (both trans and cis) who don't fit narrow criteria. Insisting on non-circularity leads to worse, more exclusionary definitions, not better ones.
+The reason getting hung up on circularity is a distraction: the real philosophical work is in the qualifier. The sincere identification criterion is what makes this definition rigorous, robust, and universally applicable. Whether or not it "sounds circular" is irrelevant.
+We need a definition of "woman" that treats all women with dignity, reflects how gender identity functions in the real world, and centers individuals' self-understanding. Self-identification does that better than the alternatives, circular or not. //Definitions can be circular. Arguments should not be.// Anti-Trans people may pose the question or demand as though they are seeking a definition, but they are making an argument.
+So while it may have a circular element in its phrasing, it does not meet the criteria of a circular argument fallacy. The criterion is the important bit, and as such, the definition is not simply assuming the truth of the conclusion as a premise. If you dive into definitions a bit more deeply, you will find most all definitions are circular in some way.
 That is why getting hung up on circularity is a distraction from what matters: fighting for all women's rights, well-being and liberation. Trans women are women, period, regardless of how neat and tidy our definition is. It's time we recognize that and move forward together.
@@ Line 80: / Line 159: @@
 Constantly interrogating trans women's identities fuels a climate of prejudice and hostility:
-It marks them as "suspicious" and subjects them to invasive scrutiny
+  *     It marks them as "suspicious" and subjects them to invasive scrutiny
+  *     It emboldens harassment, discrimination, and even violence
-It emboldens harassment, discrimination, and even violence
+  *     It props up harmful policies like bathroom bills and bans on trans healthcare
-It props up harmful policies like bathroom bills and bans on trans healthcare
 Fixating on defining womanhood in relation to a tiny minority is a cruel distraction from the sexism all women face, especially from cis men. As JoJoFromJerz notes:
-> //"They don't want us talking about Amber Thurman or Kate Cox or Amanda Zurawski... They want us tying ourselves into knots of our own making by taking the bro bullshit bait of their distractionpalooza agenda."// 12
+> //"They don't want us talking about Amber Thurman or Kate Cox or Amanda Zurawski... They want us tying ourselves into knots of our own making by taking the bro bullshit bait of their distractionpalooza agenda."// [(JoJoFromJerz2024)]
 These are women who were denied life-saving abortion care, left to suffer and nearly die because of how womanhood has been gatekept. Obsessing over "what is a woman" does nothing to materially improve women's conditions.
-This is why the best answer to this question/tactic is simply to not engage with it on their terms. Respond with a very pithy quote from JoJo: //“If you’re asking it means you don’t know and you don’t care to know.”//
+This is why the best answer to this question/tactic is simply to not engage with it on their terms. Respond with a very pithy quote from JoJo: //"If you're asking it means you don't know and you don't care to know."//
 If you must engage with this question/tactic, turn it around and ask them to provide it. Then proceed to point out every possible exception to their definition. I feel I must give you the disclaimer that such an effort will be as time consuming as it will be emotionally exhausting, and it is highly unlikely you will change any hearts or minds that engage with you. You will leave breadcrumbs for the readers who come after, and this is something I feel is very valuable; however, this should not come at the cost of your emotional well-being.
@@ Line 98: / Line 175: @@
 ===== A Better Way Forward =====
-Womanhood is a vast and varied category. Trans women are women, period, regardless of their bodies or presentation. "Woman" describes an inner identity, not a rigid biological classification.
+Womanhood is a vast and varied category. Trans women are women, period, regardless of their bodies or presentation. "Woman" describes an inner identity and sincere gender identification, not a rigid biological classification or conformity to stereotypes.
-Our focus must be on fighting the real threats to women's rights and safety. We must stand in solidarity with the most marginalized women, including trans women, and work to dismantle patriarchal oppression in all its forms. Anything less is not feminism. Anything less is gatekeeping womanhood, and at that point you are being part of the problem, not standing up as part of the solution.13
+Our focus must be on fighting the real threats to women's rights and safety. We must stand in solidarity with the most marginalized women, including trans women, and work to dismantle patriarchal oppression in all its forms. Anything less is not feminism. Anything less is gatekeeping womanhood, and at that point you are being part of the problem, not standing up as part of the solution.[(NB7)]
 True allyship means respecting trans people's self-understanding, not imposing exclusionary definitions on them. It's time to stop asking "what is a woman?" and start asking "how can we make the world safer for all women?"
 That is the only question that matters.
+==== Notes and References ====
-This is not necessarily a bad thing per se, I explain this in a later section
+[(NB1>This is not necessarily a bad thing per se, I explain this in a later section)]
+[(Bettcher2013>
 Bettcher, T. M. (2013). Trans women and the meaning of 'woman'. In The philosophy of sex: Contemporary readings, 6th ed. (pp. 233-250). Rowman & Littlefield.
-Link[PDF]: https://philpapers.org/archive/BETQWA.pdf
+Link[PDF]: https://philpapers.org/archive/BETQWA.pdf)]
+[(NB2>…and gender non-conforming women and non-binary folks)]
-…and gender non-conforming women and non-binary folks
+[(NB3>This frames being transgender as a medical condition of being born in the "wrong" physical body for one's true psychological gender. While this approach has been useful for some trans people in accessing medical transition, Serano argues it still treats cis bodies and identities as the default, and positions trans people as needing to "fix" their "mismatched" body to be valid.)]
-NB: This frames being transgender as a medical condition of being born in the "wrong" physical body for one's true psychological gender. While this approach has been useful for some trans people in accessing medical transition, Serano argues it still treats cis bodies and identities as the default, and positions trans people as needing to "fix" their "mismatched" body to be valid.
+[(NB4>This model, while seemingly more progressive, still sets up trans people as "transcending" the very categories of man and woman. Serano notes this framing positions trans women as marginal to womanhood - as outside or "beyond" the boundaries of the category itself.)]
-NB: This model, while seemingly more progressive, still sets up trans people as "transcending" the very categories of man and woman. Serano notes this framing positions trans women as marginal to womanhood - as outside or "beyond" the boundaries of the category itself.
+[(Serano2013>Serano, J. (2013). Excluded: Making feminist and queer movements more inclusive. Seal Press.)]
-Serano, J. (2013). Excluded: Making feminist and queer movements more inclusive. Seal Press.
+[(JoJoFromJerz2024>
-JoJoFromJerz. (2024). What is a woman? Substack. https://jojofromjerz.substack.com/p/what-is-a-woman
+JoJoFromJerz. (2024). What is a woman? Substack. https://jojofromjerz.substack.com/p/what-is-a-woman)]
+[(Fausto-Sterling2k>
-Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. Basic Books.
+Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. Basic Books.)]
+[(Stryker2k8>
 Stryker, Susan (2008). Transgender History. Seal Press.
-Link[PDF]: https://transreads.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2019-03-17_5c8eb1ebaced4_susan-stryker-transgender-history2.pdf
+Link[PDF]: https://transreads.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2019-03-17_5c8eb1ebaced4_susan-stryker-transgender-history2.pdf)]
-Pointed out to me by an astute reader: ““transgender” is a colonial term. Identity within the concepts of two-spirit for Indigenous to Occupied Turtle Island (North America, Canada, Mexico) and Abya Yala (Central & South America, the Andes) aka “The Americas” does not fit under the transgender umbrella. Many people make that mistake and make these attributions without consulting actual two-spirit people. There was no transgender in pre-colonial pre-Columbian tribal nations cause gender was not a binary as it was/is. Two-spirit is not trans, although two-spirit people can be, it is NOT a requirement and they are NOT the same. Two-spirit is a sacred cultural ROLE not just an “identity” - we are born two-spirit and we have specific duties, a particular way to live, a different sexuality, and it is a gender unto itself.”
+[(NB5>
-NB: This points to the distinctive social and cultural worlds that trans people have constructed, often in the face of marginalization from mainstream society. Within these subcultures, trans people's self-understandings, ways of being, and knowledge are centered and validated. What I am suggesting here (and the cited authors) is that in these contexts, self-identification is the key criterion for gender, in contrast to dominant biological essentialist definitions.
+Pointed out to me by an astute reader: ""transgender" is a colonial term. Identity within the concepts of two-spirit for Indigenous to Occupied Turtle Island (North America, Canada, Mexico) and Abya Yala (Central & South America, the Andes) aka "The Americas" does not fit under the transgender umbrella. Many people make that mistake and make these attributions without consulting actual two-spirit people. There was no transgender in pre-colonial pre-Columbian tribal nations cause gender was not a binary as it was/is. Two-spirit is not trans, although two-spirit people can be, it is NOT a requirement and they are NOT the same. Two-spirit is a sacred cultural ROLE not just an "identity" - we are born two-spirit and we have specific duties, a particular way to live, a different sexuality, and it is a gender unto itself.")]
+[(NB6>
-See 7 Above
+This points to the distinctive social and cultural worlds that trans people have constructed, often in the face of marginalization from mainstream society. Within these subcultures, trans people's self-understandings, ways of being, and knowledge are centered and validated. What I am suggesting here (and the cited authors) is that in these contexts, self-identification is the key criterion for gender, in contrast to dominant biological essentialist definitions.)]
+[(NB7>
-Yes, I am not happy to cut such a stark dichotomy here but I felt it appropriate. I feel very strongly about human rights issues, and trans rights are human rights. “The only thing needed for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing” comes readily to mind.
+Yes, I am not happy to cut such a stark dichotomy here but I felt it appropriate. I feel very strongly about human rights issues, and trans rights are human rights. //"The only thing needed for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing"// comes readily to mind.)]

Trace:

Differences

Search

Navigation

Print/export

Tools

QR Code