It's always funny when people try to define terms and they try to rip off the style of dictionary entries despite not having the same mastery of English as dictionary writers. Just saying "born with the capability of holding eggs" didn't sound dictionary-y enough to her, so she tried to add more to make it sound more badass and legit. But saying anyone is born with the intention to hold eggs is the most ridiculous and obviously flawed part of her whole argument, which would have been better off if she just left it out. But nooooo I need to sound super smart.

A stronger play from here would have been to utilize the fact that Dani challenged her not to exclude any cis women, so you could just propose that the definition of biological female is identical to the definition of cis woman. This would include all cis women and exclude all trans women by definition, just like Lea wanted to do. And by using Dani's own terminology which Dani already implicitly agreed was valid, Dani is left without a clear counterargument. But Lea was too stupid to have this simple idea. And Dani was too stupid to realize that she was already implicitly agreeing to there being a substantive difference between cis and non-cis women worthy of terminological distinction, and that she was implicitly drawing a connection between biological women and cis women by putting forth the challenge in the first place. A profound display of inability to think from all sides.

There's really only one rational way to discuss this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_differentiation_in_humans

One of the more interesting aspects of this:

Most mammals, including humans, have an XY sex-determination system: the Y chromosome carries factors responsible for triggering male development. In the absence of a Y chromosome, the fetus will undergo female development.

Female sexual development is kind of the fail-safe option; male development depends on the presence of the Y chromosome.

For example in Turner syndrome (45,X0) a fetus develops with only the X chromosome (and only 45 of the typical 46). This always presents as sexually female.

But then that's not always true because there's XX male syndrome, in which a 46,XX individual develops male sexual characteristics.

Genetics gets progressively weirder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_chromosome_anomalies

Many cases of these anomalies do not present significant health concerns and therefore are rarely identified (for instance, triple X syndrome (47,XXX)), which means that it's likely that anomalies are more common than what is represented in the recorded data. We simply don't have complete karyotype records for everyone born on the planet.

Basically, biology laughs at attempts to define strict categories. All we can really do is define what is most typical, and what is atypical, and of the atypical cases it's the ones that present health concerns which receive the most study. There is a lot of gray area.

And all of that only covers human sexual differentiation. Other mammals are generally similar (using the XY system), but have not been studied to the same depth as human genetics (because healthcare). And of course there are other systems.

So the original point is valid - "biological female" is at best a vague category with fuzzy edges and weird overlaps, with "normal" defined by statistical representation more than specific characteristics. Reality is too complicated to fit in neat boxes.

The ol' plucked chicken bit, classic!

Based only on that picture, the egg carton can be labeled as a Woman. It was born with the intention and capability for only holding eggs.

Diogenes has entered the gender wars?

intention

Lea, you absolute dumbass,...

The English language is not sufficient enough to describe biological gender without making broad generalizations.

Nobody was born with any intention, women do not develop eggs until after puberty.