This is true, however, what the above definitions are general archetypes. Though there are some exceptions to the rule, that doesn't mean they don't provide a useful way to categorize humans. 

A female is one who *has the nature* of being able to perform gestation (become pregnant). Just because may not be able to become pregnant because of various health conditions, that doesn't change the fact that their body has most of the necessary components in order to grow bear children. Just because something has gone awry, does not mean that the person falls into an entirely new classification.

For example, just because not all people have 10 fingers, that does not mean that categorizing humans as "having 10 fingers" would be inaccurate. And just because someone has, for example, lost some fingers in an accident, does not mean they would no longer be classified as a human.

So would posit that my initial statement:
> Male: a human who is naturally unable to perform gestation
Female: a human who is naturally able to perform gestation

Was correct, as, just because there are a few exceptions to the rule, that does mean the entire manner of classification is inaccurate
spam fails_task lang_mismatch pii not_appropriate hate_speech sexual_content quality toxicity humor helpfulness creativity violence