> US Republicans have literally passed laws defining "woman" based on having a functioning womb

The bill referenced makes no direct mention of womb, nor functioning. You're using "literally" a bit unfaithfully there.

from the law

> a "female" is an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova,

isn’t having a functioning uterus a hard prerequisite to the ability to produce ova?

“is developed to produce ova” is a statement about current capability. If they meant to include women with hysterectomies, they would have worded it differently, like “is or once was developed to produce ova;” if they meant to include women with non-functioning wombs, they would have written more broadly, like “is of the type that usually produces ova” or something.