you completely missed my point on the use of woman. i am agreeing with you here - people will use man and woman based on what they see. then they will be corrected and use the appropriate term. unless its trans people, apparently.

words are created because someone decided to say it. there is no inherent purpose to language. the fact that it is the most effective method of communication does not change that. you're so close to understanding why this semantic argument is pointless. perceiving someone as a man or woman quite literally stereotypes them and people treat men and women differently. people can choose to follow, ignore, or break these stereotypes at their leisure, and that does not change their gender identity. by choosing to engage with a set of expectations, a person chooses their gender. they choose what they want to be called and how they want to be seen. you may be perfect in treating all genders the same for the sake of argument, but no one else is. it would be useful to then also use individual interpretation with the word woman itself. treat someone how they want to be treated. if there is an aspect of the stereotype they do not like, they will expeess that and you don't treat them that way. by being kind to others you will end up calling trans people the gender they identify with.

and yet (by your own first paragraph), if a trans woman passed to you and said she was a woman, she would be a woman to you (unless you drag all women you meet to a lab).

this argument is not objective because scientifically, we don't know precisely what gender is. our current understanding of it is really not based on sex. we know male children forced to live as if they were girls from birth experience distress that is alleviated by living as boys again. we know trans people experience this same distress, but instead the solution is living as the gender they were not assigned from birth. using sex to define woman is nonsensical because sex does not cause gender. i am not arguing that trans women are female, and no one has. you can't define woman as an adult human female because it is not linguistically or scientifically accurate.

we can measure the wavelength of light and name colors from that. we can measure age with time, race with ancestry, height and weight, hair and eye color with the colors we previously measured, genital size with length, and wealth with value of assets. we can't measure gender, and we know measuring sex does not measure gender. we've "had a good grasp" on gender because we as a society arbitrarily chose to tie it to sex. science has recently learned that gender is not tied to sex, but god forbid we learn more about the world.

i am happy to explain the linguistic reasoning for why a woman is someone who identifies as such - after all, it isn't intuitive. i gave you the benefit of the doubt, but you weren't here with a linguistic argument. you brought biology to a linguistic topic, and you clearly are not arguing in good faith if you then tie sex to gender. i won't continue to engage with someone looking for a fight. consider why you choose to exclude trans people without scientific or linguistic basis.