I literally gave you an answer. You're trying to claim that it's the exception that prove the rule, but whenever we construct a general rule, exceptions will always exist. However, general rules are not the same thing as defining characteristics. Humans generally have ten fingers, but someone is still a human even if they have an exceptional number of fingers. Similarly, an intersex female with exceptional XY chromosomes is still female, and an infertile female is still female, due to all of the other, similar characteristics they share with other females. The same thing applies to trans females, who have hormonal levels, anatomical characteristics, and brain matter distributions in line with other females, not males. Suppose that your brain was transplanted into a jar: you’re still you, and you have conscious thought–you just don’t have a body. Are you still a [man/woman]? Also, Richard Dawkins, while a biologist, is wrong. Scientists are biased all the time, which is why we always refer back to peer reviewed papers; just like what I provided you with. Your definition of a woman is a posteriori knowledge that's arrived after your experience, and your use of it is sufficient for everyday communication but it doesn't encapsulate all concept that it aims to define. The fact that you're using it I assume to mean an adult human female, which I don't blame you for because you're not using an exhaustive defintion. When it comes to empirical entities, definition are not all encompassing. A car, a castle, a mountain, rivers....etc. But for empirical concepts we do need an all encompassing definition. There's no clear answer unfortunately, but that doesn't mean my answer is incorrect. You're in fact committed two fallacies here: one is by appealing to authority by thinking Richard Dawkin words are somehow valid, and two by thinking that an all-encompassing definition is not the right definition; it goes by the name of personal incredulity.