By definition, literally, your secondary definition is meaningless.

The more diluted a term is, the noisier it becomes, until it no longer conveys information. From everything I can see, this dilution appears intentional for the purpose of establishing new dominance hierarchies.

As I'm sure you are fully aware, sometimes we find that certain concepts don't fully match reality as it is, and we then have to work to update our conceptual frameworks.

Is it that hard to imagine that "woman" and "man" might be one of those concepts? Especially given the amount of scientific progress that has occurred in the past few centuries?

Not saying I have all of the answers. It's just interesting to me how some people seem completely closed off to the idea that we may need to improve our understanding in this area.

It's curious how politics and activists tend to approach definitions backward. Anyone who aims to be rigorous (as politology and sociology should be) knows that you first must define clearly a term and then reason about it. Instead, we usually see attempts to redefine well-established terms, not by adding an additional meaning, but by replacing the original one. In a purely rational reasoning system, this change would be irrelevant because the important thing is the meaning, not the significant. But we humans are fallible beings, and we tend to transfer the perceptions and logical conclusions attached to the meaning to the significant itself. This way, when a redefinition is done in a society, the term will drag for a while the concepts related to the old meaning. This is a powerful manipulation weapon and I think it's the reason why it's so prevalent in those fields.

This is not saying that you shouldn't redefine anything. As you said in our daily lives there are a lot of terms that have lossy definitions that don't match perfectly with our mental models. But you should be cautious with the real intent of the redefinition, especially if it comes top-down.

The reality and the science is very clear. What you're saying is that science should be adjusted to take into account people's feelings.

That is not science.

And it's only being made more ridiculous when the proponents for the fuzziness of the concept of what a women is also insist that there are a multitude more genders and that you can change between them on the fly several times a day.

If the science is so clear, can you help me understand? Why do trans people claim what they claim? Can you point me to the research?

I need a more detailed explanation than “they have a medical disorder”.

The two words are brutally honest in what they mean: a man is a creature with manas (i.e. intelligence), and a woman is a man with the "wo" body parts.

But if there is no universal definition, then why would anyone get upset about being called a women or a man?

Because they've asked not to be.

I knew someone born by the name Todd. He hated the name, and changed it to John. Anyone who knew he wanted to be called John and still called him Todd got an earful - because he asked not to be.

I'm not talking about names, I'm talking about being identified as a man or a woman.

If there is no definition of what a woman is, then being identified incorrectly can't exactly be condemned.

Again: They asked not to be.

Using an identifying word, that you've asked not to use, is a dick move. Accidents can happen, until you get used to something, and most people are fine with that and will give a gentle reminder. But continuing to use a term you've been asked not to, isn't fine.

Let's put it another way.

There's a girl I know, who was born Tiwi. However, though she looks Tiwi, she asks not to be referred to that way, and prefers Australian or native, or indigenous. For why? Every single one of the Tiwi Elders raped her, at one time or another. She shouldn't need to explain that horrifying background for you, reliving those oh-so-pleasant memories, for you to see reason in not calling her Tiwi. Because she's asked not to be.

Similarly, people have asked to be identified a certain way. Some of the reasons may be traumatic. They shouldn't have to relive that trauma, just for you to consider acquiescing to their effortless request.

All that should matter... Is they asked not to be. Fin.

But there is a definition: female mammals are XX and have female morphology. So you're not helping the conversation by investigating consequences of a false premise.