At the risk of starting a flame, has anyone considered that there is a bit of cultural bias in this whole conversation? How well do, for example, Hindi sculptures of beautiful women fit all these assumptions? I guess I'm curious about the question rather than the answer. What do we mean by "makes a woman a woman"? Are we looking for the details of a stereotype (that is, a mental representation rather than an artifact)? Or for the biological/physiological differences--which is where this started, sort of? See, the trouble is, what makes a woman a woman is one thing--the one warned about in "before you start." Women who look like Golda Meir are still women, neh? What makes a woman's face is genetics and hormones, and we all have both the male and female hormones surging around inside, regardless of sexual orientation or identity. A woman with "excess" facial hair (Anna Magnani, for example, or Katy Jurado) can be utterly and vehemently female, and a man with long eyelashes, delicate features, and a barely discernable adam's apple may be as heterosexual as a tomcat. So we are talking about the visual clues that tell us a man in drag is a man in drag, that Julie Andrews is not Victor but Victoria. Then we are talking about culturally determined and racially charged assumptions. Not making any accusations here, but think about it. The Western tradition of white beauty does not become universal when it decides to welcome in the occasional dose of melanin.