😅 Oof, you write…this, and then wonder why some people don't understand the mistake you think they're making?! I'm sorry, I’m not trying to be mean, and I honestly tried, but I couldn't make it through this quagmire of “bleeps” and maracas and broccoli and chocolate covered ants. Maybe you're saying something really profound here. But you’re not doing a good job of saying it.

But what I could gather before losing the will to live, is that you're positing that there was a thing called "woman", and then people who weren't women started doing things that women do. And society started calling those people women too. And so the meaning of the word woman changed.

But if this interpretation is correct, it falls down at numerous points. First, society didn't start doing this at all. "We" didn't "add SOOOO much to the word 'woman.'" Instead, some fraction of society started yelling, "people👏who👏shake👏broccoli👏like👏maracas👏are👏bleeps!"

Or, more accurately "people👏who👏shake👏broccoli👏like👏maracas👏are👏people👏who👏like👏chocolate👏covered👏ants!"

This despite the two having nothing to do with each other. They just declared it and used the most basic linguistic sleight of hand to justify it.

It's like me saying "pommel horses are horses!" No they're not. That doesn't mean I'm questioning pommel horses' "right to exist", I'm just acknowledging the reality of what they are.

Second, I'm not using a "daily life" definition of woman, in fact, I'd argue that it's you who's doing that. You’re conflating “woman” with “womanly” and makeup and all those “girly things” women have spent centuires trying to free themselves from. I'm using a well established, dictionary definition that has stood since time immemorial and isn't subject to stereotypes and subjectivity. The same type of definition I use, as we noted earlier, to identify a hen or a lioness or a vixen.

So any "identifying behaviours" that you think define women are actually the very stereotypes that we should all be trying to move beyond. There are no identifying behaviours for a woman, there are identifying attributes.

(On a slight tangent, this is why it's also ridiculous to claim that babies are "assigned" a sex at birth. No they're not. Their sex is observed with 99.98% (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/) accuracy by a doctor, and, to be fair, the same could be done by anybody over the age of 3 months or so.)

This is why once again, this argument is so silly. You're making these claims about 'inner biology" which are not factually untrue, but just mind-bindingly disingenuous. Because, somehow, despite not being able to see this "inner biology," I'd be able to guess at it, on sight, with ~99.98% accuracy. What magical powers allow me to do this you ask? Is it possible that there are myriad external corollaries between this "unknowable inner biology" and the secondary sex characteristics that even tiny little children can identify?

Looking at people's heads alone, I'd be extremely confident of being right around 98+% of the time. But you want to argue that your "just ask every single male and female how they're feeling on that particular day", definition is more valid/meaningful. I mean, you seem smart. How can you stand behind this nonsense?