> One of the original people demanding “define a woman” was a law maker. If we’re making laws that use the word woman we need to have a stringent definition.

We don’t (and, contrary to a sibling comment, this is not particular to common law, it applies in civil law jurisdictions as well, though it may be more true in the common law). If every word in law needed a “stringent definition”, the law would be so full of definitions you’d never be able to find the rules that actually apply them to the real world. Laws sometimes need stringent definitions, and they sometimes need disambiguation between plausible alternatives that don’t actually require a stringent definition, and sometimes they get by just fine with no definition at all.

Um, court cases very often hinge on how to define the words used in writing laws.

> we're making laws that use the word woman we need to have a stringent definition

Not ex ante. That’s the strength of common law. If you have a problem with this, consider why we need laws which define womanhood. (Yes, I am an ERA proponent.)

I don't know why we need laws that define woman or womanhood. Would you offer an example?

An ERA proponent is in reference to an Equal Rights Amendment?

> don't know why we need laws that define woman or womanhood

I don’t. And I’m struggling to play devil’s advocate, which is uncommon.

> ERA proponent is in reference to an Equal Rights Amendment

Yes.

It's a useless definition. A woman is someone who identifies as a woman. Circular definition much? Makes the word pretty much meaningless.

Good. I don't see a need for an outside authority to define whether I'm a man or a woman. I am my own person and I can make my own decisions.

Is my gender identity invalid if I'm not someone who fits into the gender norms? Am I a woman if Customer Support thinks my voice is feminine?