Well, this is quite the non-sequitur!😅

Yes, I know that language changes over time. But we're not talking about language changing naturally, as it often does (I'll admit, I'm still bitter that "literally" was a casualty of this process), we're talking about an attempt to change other people's usage of words by diktat.

Otherwise we wouldn't even be having this conversation. You and those who think like you could continue to use "woman" as a basically meaningless word that describes how a male or a female is feeling that day, the remaining ~99% of the English-speaking world could continue to use "woman" as the term for a female human, just as--as we've already discussed--lioness is the word for a female lion, and the evolution of our language would continue on its merry way. Survival of the fittest definition.

But no.

Instead, we see increasingly Orwellian attempts to control language. We see the ACLU completely stripping the word "woman" out of a quote by Ruth Bader Ginsburg about women's rights. We see neologisms like "uterus-haver" and "menstruator" being pushed, completely ignoring the objections of many of the "front-holes" formerly known as "women" in the process. We see brilliant, educated women, too afraid of the inevitable backlash to admit that they know how to define the word that defines them. This despite the fact that they all use it frequently (are you really suggesting they use this word regularly but don't know what it means?).

And, far more importantly, the meaning of the word "woman" is important in a way that the meaning of the word "die" is not. "Woman" refers to a protected and occasionally vulnerable group of people, who we need to be able to talk about with precision in order to safeguard their rights. This, in case you were wondering, is why there is absolutely zero controversy about the definition of the word "man."

As long as nobody redefines "man" to include lions, and demands that lions be allowed into spaces that were previously only for men, there won't be a problem. There is no class of human being that poses a greater threat to men than men already do. But the laughable inadequacy of your definition of "woman", especially when combined with self ID laws, means that women have no way to keep men out of their spaces.

And let's be extremely clear here, when I say men, I'm not talking about trans women. I'm saying that by your definition, you have no way of determining whether any male (me, Donald Trump, Ted Bundy) is a woman or not, except to ask. And then you're forced to accept the answer (and give them all the attendant rights) on trust.

Changing rooms (https://metro.co.uk/2019/03/16/transgender-woman-18-sexually-assaulted-girl-10-morrisons-toilet-8914577/), prisons (https://www.lawsociety.ie/gazette/top-stories/2021/12-december/ex-inmate-gives-account-of-sex-assault-by-trans-prisoner), sports (https://gript.ie/male-trinity-student-comes-2nd-in-womens-race/), by your definition, there is nothing to keep any man out of these spaces except the honour system.

If you think silly, abstract language games are more important than the real human beings who this insanely short-sighted thinking affects, I don't know what to tell you.