CouchPotato

woman (n.) "adult female human," late Old English wimman, wiman (plural wimmen), literally "woman-man," https://www.etymonline.com/word/woman

He might not consider her as "womanly" but if she were a biological woman he would consider her a woman.

By consensus, yes. I think most people in either society would define woman as a biological adult female. They might define "womanly" differently.

Sure I can. There was a word "woman" that existed before the term "woman hood". It was not invented to describe some amorophous concept. It referred to a biological adult female. "Womanly" then came about as term to describe a stereotypical view of biological adult females.

Most people in any society. Most people in all societies combined.

Right and that thing was a biological female.

The word "woman" predates the word "womanly".

If you ask most people what a woman is, what do you suppose the answer will be?

This is a relatively new definition for the term woman. At one time, woman was synonymous with a biological female. People on the left give us this new definition that it refers to some construct called gender (which they are unable to define) and tell us it is so. Have most people accepted this definition?

You are the one who sounds angry here. How do most people in society define "woman"?

There are more than 99 people in the village. Would you agree with this statement?

But does that make his opinion invalid?

So in a village of one-hundred people, if ninety-nine people in the village have one opinion on a subject and one villager has another, is his opinion invalid?

It's not circular. It is a yes or no question. Is validity determined by consensus?

So if all societies on Earth were to collectively align under the banner of Nazism, does Nazism then become valid and acceptable?

If the definition of what constitutes an injustice is determined by the norms of society in the first place, how can you say that an injustice occurs?

So then Nazism or any other horrific ideology is just as valid as any other as long as society at large agrees to it?

So validity is determined by consensus of society. If society were to deem it acceptable to do most the heinous acts imaginable does that become acceptable? If everyone is a Nazi, is Nazism acceptable?

I am not implying anything. I am asking you if there is one. If there is no standard, then all definitions become equally valid. All opinions become equally valid simply by having been conceived.

So your answer is yes. Right. So if there is no standard for what is valid, then everything is valid. The very act of conceiving of any opinion on any issue no matter how ridiculous is self-validating. No one can arbitrate whether or not the opinion is valid. Therefore, it is.

Yes they are. You just won't answer them. Either all definitions are equally valid or they aren't.

I think you can just answer the question then. If there is no standard for arbitrating what is valid, then the reasonable conclusion is that your answer is yes to both of those questions.

Fair enough.

I am trying to determine if he thinks any and all definitions are sane, if there is any limit to what is reasonable or valid.

They are yes or no questions. If you are asserting that there is no basis for one to judge the thoughts another person has about their own self, then I assume you are saying that those things are valid. But I want to hear it from the horse's mouth. Is it valid for two people with completely the same characteristics to define themselves one as a "man" and one as a "woman"? Is it valid for any person with any combination of traits and characteristics to define themselves as any gender? Two questions, both yes or no. Very simple.