Image macro found via

Let's take this statement as truth, at face value. “All women are real”. It follows then that, as women, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Little Red Riding-hood’s grandmother, Molly Bloom, Asuka Soryu and Helen of Troy are all real. I did want to include female goddesses in that list but, as I'll later explain, they have to be excluded from womanhood. I came to this conclusion following reading an article on the neo-feminist (or whatever you prefer to call it) blog Jezebel, which argued that men should avoid describing women as “female” because that is a term used to gender non-humans. Meerkats and electric sockets can be female, but they can't be women. Women are not merely “female”: they are women. Female humans. So what is a human? The obvious answer is that a human is a member of the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, but that doesn't really work as the terms are practically synonymous. A meerkat is a Suricata suricatta and a Suricata suricatta is a meerkat. It's circular reasoning in nomenclature and gets us nowhere. The important distinction made by Jezebel in what makes a woman a woman is her humanity, so let's say that a human is someone who was born to human parents. Therefore a woman is a female born to human parents.

So: Is a goddess a woman? Clearly not, unless she has human parents. I'm sure there are numerous examples of goddesses born to human parents, but they're goddesses and women; simply being a goddess doesn't make a woman. But what about Eve? Real or not-real, was she a woman? She was born of Adam's rib cage (just the one parent in her case rather than the traditional two but let's overlook that), but was Adam born of human parents? Obviously not. This still applies if you're not a fan of Genesis, it applies just as well to the Mitochondrial Eve as it does the Biblical one. The first “human” was not born to human parents and therefore was not a human, so any offspring could not be human therefore there is no such thing as humans. More to the point this means there is no such thing as a woman. Women are not real.

However, if we've already accepted the “all women are real” hypothesis, this necessarily includes the set of not-real women, by which I mean the subset of previously mentioned women (Buffy, Bloom, Helen, etc) who are fictional, as well as the subset of things that are “not really” women. This set happens to include everything that not only does and could, but doesn't and can't exist. For example; rocks, The Fourier Series, petrol fumes, the act of sadomasochism and the things-previously-thought-of-as-women-yet-shown-not-to-exist-in-the-previous-paragraph. As they are “not-real” women, by the logic of the original statement (“all women are real”) this puts them firmly in the set of “real” women, and they are therefore also beautiful.

If everything is women then everything is therefore beautiful. This is logically irrefutable as you simply need to be employing the right frame of reference to find beauty in something. Subjectivity applies not only to individuals but the same individual over time. One's conception of what constitutes beauty changes with age. A toilet can be quite beautiful if you think about it; not just the beautifully curved shiny porcelain but a happy toilet that's been well used, served its purpose, or a filthy one that's giving a home to billions of tiny bacterium, life in all its rich variety; that's beautiful too. The Queen probably has a toilet that's beautiful even without any stretch of the imagination, and if you're into kinky robots, toilets in Japan might be the most beautiful things you've ever come across, pun not intended. With all that in mind, we can combine and rework the opening statements for clarity: “Everything is beautiful – women are”, “Women are everything beautiful” or best of all “Women, are. Everything is beautiful”.