>>40373547
let's say, hypothetically, for the sake of argument, that a woman is "an adult human female". and let's define mammalian females as those which have XX chromosomes. Let us inquire: why are the XX chromosomes relevant?
"It's because they are what make something female!", you say. But then they can't be at all part of the definition of female, since that would make it self referential. Congratulations, we now have:
>a female is one with the thing that makes it female
>a woman is an adult human with the thing that makes it a woman
And here we see the fundamental flaw of natural language definitions: natural language is altogether incapable of defining things, as every definition attempt of a term in natural language will rely on other terms in the natural language, which themselves must be defined relying on other terms in an infinite self referential chain and therefore is void. In order to avoid this, natural language would need to have undefined terms, which form it's ground truth (as is done in mathematics, a formal system which admits of real definitions based on fundamental undefined terms which are understood by their relationship to each other rather than through natural language descriptions. See Hilbert's axiomatization of geometry).
The purpose of natural language is to allow for the communication of an intuitive and internal sense of meaning between subjects, not for definitions, as a result "definitions" in natural language are all truly just descriptions, and by "woman" I am describing trannies as well. cope and sneedthe chuddie.