Any beginning Latin learner discovers that English "man" has two translations: homo, when referring to a man as opposed to another species, and vir, when referring to a man as opposed to a woman.
I am curious about how well this distinction works, though. For instance, consider the following line from Plautus:
Homo hic ebrius est, ut opinor. (Amphitruo, 574)
This man is drunk, I think.
In my mind--perhaps because of the hic--this could only refer to a male. The following two contrived sentences, though, strike me as incorrect:
Helena homo est.
Hae mulieres homines sunt.
My question: Are there are any cases where homo alone refers to a single woman or where homines refers to a group of just women?
To add some clarity about my question, I am primarily curious about the word homo itself: whether it can refer to an individual woman. Here's a Corpus search for "homo es[t]": I wonder if any of the 94 results refer to a woman, e.g.:
Iulia, homo es!
Assuming this is possible, a second interesting question (addressed by many of the below answers) is whether this homo is epicene (always masculine, regardless of who it refers to) or if it is common (masculine or feminine, depending on who it refers to). In other words, should I write:
Iulia, homo es bonus!
Iulia, homo es bona!