Yevamos 63a:
?”? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???
??:
???? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???
So apparently, unmarried men and men who don’t own land, are really women. Hence they are not Jewish. But how could they not be Jewish?
They wear tzitzis, wear tefilin, wear yarlmukes, learn, daven, eat in the sukkah, and do all of the mitzvos.
They count for a minyan, they can be motzi Jews in mitzvos, they can read from the torah, they can be a witness, can be a judge, etc.
They even have a bris, which is the sign of our covenant with Hashem!
In short, they fulfill all the criteria mentioned by Popa in his first post. Now if they are not Jewish despite fulfilling all the criteria for Jewishness, then clearly we have the wrong criteria. Which means Popa’s whole proof that women aren’t Jewish is not a proof. Which means that presumably women are Jewish. But if women are in fact Jewish then that means that unmarried men (who as established above, are really women) are Jewish. Well if they’re Jewish then there is no reason not to accept Popa’s criteria, in which case women really aren’t Jewish. And then the circle starts again.