Yes, though often in too-direct ways that are needlessly preachy and don't hold up particularly well over time (case in point).
True, but again I think you're pulling the line, and the scene in which it's delivered, out of context and expecting it to stand on its own - 61 years after it was filmed. Plus, it's a pilot episode that was ultimately rejected, and then later recut into an episode of the series that was actually produced.
In the historical context I gave above, what you're actually seeing is one of early Trek's many ham-fisted attempts to address the prevailing morality of the time in a far too direct way. Basically, Roddenberry is using Pike to preach at the audience of his day - he is commenting on the exclusion of women from shipboard service intentionally (and probably more generally the classic superstition about women on ships).
In this scene, Pike's character is being used as a stand-in for men who actually do (or did, in 1964) have "traditional" (sexist) ideas about women on ships, so that Roddenberry can tell them directly that he thinks they're wrong. The line is bad, because it's poorly written, it lacks subtlety - it is an example of the writer being preachy, to the point of tryhard. It is a failure to follow the old adage "show, don't tell".
The context in which this scene was written and performed no longer exists. To judge this in the context of the present and conclude that "Pike sounds like a dick" is to miss the point.
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.
I think it's worth discussing the context of this comment a bit.
Roddenberry's original vision of shipboard life in space was based highly on shipboard life in the US Navy, and particularly the submarine service. This is a pretty good model, because you have the somewhat contradictory social pressures of a military structure that must maintain good order to function properly, while also being a relatively small group of people sharing a confined living space for extended periods of time. You can't really escape from each other. Also your living space is a fragile piece of equipment that you have to maintain carefully in order to stay alive, the only thing between you and the hostile environment outside.
In 1948 the Women's Armed Services Integration Act was passed, which:
enabled women to serve as permanent, regular members of the armed forces in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and the recently formed Air Force. Prior to this act, women, with the exception of nurses, served in the military only in times of war.
However:
Section 502 of the act limited service of women by excluding them from aircraft and vessels of the Navy that might engage in combat.
Fighting was a job for men, you see. The definition of "vessels that might engage in combat" basically covered everything the Navy had in service, because even a support ship might have to defend itself from attack.
As a result, there were no women serving on the bridges of any Navy vessels.
This finally changed in 1978 in Owens v. Brown, in which Judge Sirica declared the prohibition of shipboard service for women to be unconstitutional. At this point women began serving aboard support and noncombat vessels. Congress finally approved service for women aboard combat vessels in 1993.
Women were still prohibited from the submarine service until 2010.
When The Cage was filmed in 1964, the idea of women serving on the bridge of any vessel was 14 years ahead of its time, and if we consider that the USS Enterprise was a ship-of-the-line, a true Starfleet combat vessel even if her primary duty was exploration, then 29 years ahead of its time.
Taken out of context the original line seems sexist and repressive, but in its time it was projecting a very progressive view of uniformed service.
It would also just be... not fun to watch on screen. Lots of time waiting in the dirt and the mud, the heat or the rain or the snow, standing watch on long nights when nothing happens, fighting off rats more than enemy troops, dealing with the diseases that spread easily through camps, digging ditches and stockades and latrines, hoping the other guys run out of food first. The reality of such battles is dirty and ugly.
This just in: China projects! Film at eleven.
Tell you what, release all the files unredacted, then we'll have the names of all the Democrats that were involved.
Prosecute Flock for every camera that ever recorded ICE activity, even just a vehicle driving on the highway.
If we had some ham, we could make ham and eggs, if we had some eggs.
You're welcome. I hope that your friend can understand that in this context the intention was good (to call attention to the exclusion of women from shipboard service), though the execution was bad.
Judging the current series on the merits of this one out-of-context scene, filmed 61 years ago for the rejected pilot episode seems... rather narrow-minded. It sounds more like your friend is looking for excuses not to give the series a genuine try. The context in which a piece of media was produced always matters - to ignore the context is to take a fish out of water and judge it for its inability to climb a tree.