The issue isn't whether the definition can change. The issue is whether we are changing to a definition that is completely circular and therefore void of meaning.
"Are you a woman?"
"What is a woman?"
"A woman is what I am."
I assume when people say this they have an actual explanation.
if I say '[I think] I'm depressed', there's a series of questions you can ask me, and then say 'actually, I think you're right about that'.
if I say '[I think] I'm a woman', everyone who has that as a word in their vocabulary should be able to ask me a set of questions, or even just one question, if such is their definition.
whose set of questions are the right ones [for today in our everchanging world where future information or reasoning may change what we have to consider to be right tomorrow] is the philosophical question (only after which can political questions be appropriately considered).
Daniel was willing to throw down/own up/participate/contribute, and he offered his questions, in effect, though only vaguely (does 'physiology' mean a uterus? a vagina? XX chromosomes? _only_ something and definitely no presence of something else (e.g., a definition that requires 'intersex' rather than a binary, or a broader definition of 'male' than one might anticipate for completing the set), or so forth.).
people of the more contemporary view have apparently not seen this thread yet, or any other thread/comment/post on the internet I've ever posed it, because they don't seem to have a response. If I say I feel like an octopus, they'd readily say 'trust me, you're not an octopus', but they won't say 'naa bro you're not a woman', which implies a definition beyond or even independent of physiology, but which they haven't been willing to state. If I said 'I think I'm a neonazi', they could happily pose a set of questions and come to a conclusion. so the cognitive nature of the issue shouldn't impede being so straightforward/proving that they do indeed have an alternative definition to challenge the status quo with, rather than just a lip-service condemnation of people who adhere to the use of the word that has an explanation for its use.
in the atheist/agnostic definition debate, whether or not people agree about the historical or correct or best or easiest term to use, they can at least acknowledge 'when he says x, he means this', and 'when I say x, I mean that'. With the 'wo/man' debate, it's not clear there's actually a disagreement/a competing position that can be stated, which very much makes it like the impossibilists vs the free will'ists debate ... to all appearances, the opponent hasn't even shown up with an argument in order for a debate to exist.
do we even have anyone here who can play Devil's advocate for them?