Not everyone wants an inclusive definition, some people want discriminatory definitions. And I don't mean discriminatory in a negative sense. If "four" means 4, it would be more inclusive if it also meant 5 and 6, but it loses some utility in its inclusivity.

My problem isn't with your definition, it's with your implied assertion that we should "we want a simple inclusive definition," which is clearly not the case, as the differing priorities in definition are literally central to the debate.

If you want a discriminatory definition, there are many bad ones to choose from. Take your pick!

Then we're back at "woman" just meaning a social nicety.