Bones

• William Lane Craig 
  
• Nick Fuentes 
  
• Cenk Uygur
  

• Trans women cannot coherently adopt the label of "woman" without voiding the term of it's meaning - predicated essentially on the failure to answer the "what is a woman" question. The social roles, self ID and gender nihilism views all fail for various reasons.
  
• A woman is therefore an adult human female unequivocally. 
  
•  Don't really have an issue with drag queens - they're plenty of weird people who have the right to be weird. I would stand against drag queens invading libraries though, that seems to be a stretch. 
  
• I wouldn't use the term "groomer" - it's sort of an implicit virtue signal, where one attempts to resonate the notion that they themselves are not groomers. Politics doesn't need anymore scathing labels than it already has. 
  

• I actually don't care about this issue in my real life at all. I know two transgender women and would say I'm friendly with them - we actually discuss philosophy and literature from time to time, all in good spirit. So I guess if someone wants to use the  tu quoque fallacy, they could say that my beliefs are inconsistent with my actions. 
• It's odd that RM accuses me of being slippery, perhaps alluding to the postulation that my beliefs are not legitimate. This is weird - I've DM'ed Oromagi, Whiteflame, Barney, Danielle, Ramshutu, Tejretics and TheWeakerEdge all for debates. That said, I'm not making a call out - some of these people were very nice about turning the offer down because of personal affairs which is perfectly understandable, but to say I'm unwilling to participate in a scrutinising of my position is weird.
  

sort of the same as decay

But that's a semantic point and completely taking the verse out of context. The obvious interpretation is that Jesus didn't stay dead for long. Luke wasn't under the impression that Jesus never died.

all suffering and evil is good in the long run

I understand if this seems like I'm making an annoying distinction, and I see where you're coming from, but I think you're making an assumption about Christian doctrine that is unfounded. An all-good God behaves in a just matter—all good doesn't just mean maximizing the number of good things that happen or the amount of pleasure that occurs by any means necessary. I argue that it's just for God to allow suffering since humans deserve it. That doesn't mean those things are good. Your hidden premise is that it is unjust for God to allow bad things to happen, but I reject that premise.

you're proving that their are different standards of proof for say a simple hypothesis such as the cat one, and the alien one

Sure. But I don't agree that the standard is "extraordinary," which is hard to quantify in the first place.

epistemic believability

I feel like we're back to where we started. What makes God epistemically unbelievable?

 cells are still vibing

Cells not being active isn't exactly the same thing as decay. Decay happens after death, at least that's the most obvious interpretation of the verse.

Do you believe there exists any instance where this is not the case?

i.e. why doesn't everyone suffer? I've often thought that the more pressing question is why anything good happens to us at all. But there are explanations for this that are strongly implied. When asked why a man was born blind, Jesus says, “this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.” So some good things help God to achieve his final purpose; the destruction of the devil, the salvation of believers, and the eventual recognition by all mankind of their sinful nature. Some good things lead people to become more moral. But the necessity of punishment for sin and the benefits of good things happening must be weighed. What I expect you want is very specific criteria (i.e. suffering is just in x, y, and z circumstances.) I don't know what those circumstances are, but I don't think that's a reason to believe there aren't any, or that the Christian God couldn't be applying some weighting mechanism and optimizing his level of intervention. We can speculate, as I'm sure you will, but the existence of speculation doesn't undermine the premise.

a great deal of evidence would be required - a simple picture or even a single report probably won't suffice. 

If a few competing news channels all reported on the alien (Fox and CNN both giving similar reports), I think I would find that sufficient. I'd probably consider an announcement by NASA to be convincing on its own as well.

So regardless of how unlikely the former circumstance is, so long as it is some real number, I would always prefer it over the supposition of an entity with infinite attributes. 

I understand your weighting mechanism, but I'm rejecting it as faulty. The sun doesn't require much evidence, despite being very large. I suspect you'd consider one person being able to fly to be much harder to believe than the existence of the sun, given similar amounts of evidence. But that violates the weighting mechanism you provided—the existence of the sun has much bigger implications than one person being able to fly. "More attributes" doesn't mean "more unlikely."

that would merely support my position that a resurrection didn't occur, because decomposition didn't. 

If death occurs without decomposition, it's still a resurrection, since that term simply refers to being brought back to life.

But I think you're reading too much into the semantics of this anyway. A reasonable reading of the verse isn't that Jesus didn't decay at all. 

if they deserve suffering, then the instance of suffering is not holistically evil, meaning that over all, the good outweighs the evil, given the just nature of them "deserving" it

If you want to define things that way, then sure. I would describe suffering as "just" in relation to what people deserve if we want to get into technical terms. It seems to me that if you can't prove people don't deserve those things, then the gratuitous evil argument isn't evidence against Christianity since we don't know that the suffering is undeserved.

1. An alien knocked my drink over with telekinesis. 
   

I buy that this is less likely than a cat knocking your drink over since cats are known to do things like that, but if this claim were true I do not think it would require extraordinary evidence. NASA making contact with aliens would not be extraordinary evidence, but it would be sufficient to make me believe in aliens. I don't think the threshold is as high as you're putting it.

god is ontologically infinite

Can you elaborate on this? I'm not sure the scope of something is proportional to its probability. Otherwise, we should have a hard time accepting the existence of the sun, which is 864,000 miles wide.

the definition of decay is "the state or process of rotting or decomposition"

Words have multiple reasonable meanings that are understood in context. "Decay" necessitates that some amount of decay has occurred. The term can also be translated as a "return to corruption." Not decaying could be a result of the embalming, though some people consider this a part of the miracle while others do not. Neither of these interpretations contradicts Jesus dying.

the definition of gratuitous is merely suffering which serves no good making purposes

I reject the premise that God being good means that God must prevent something that is causing more harm than good... I reject that premise since the Christian position is that all humans deserve suffering.

epistemically extraordinary

Are you still defining extraordinary as "a truth impacting literally everything else in the universe"? Or do you mean something else? What criteria make something extraordinary, and why do those things require a lot of evidence?

1. My cat knocked my drink over. 
   
2. An alien knocked my drink over with telekinesis. 
   

I didn't say decay I said decomposition.

The verse you quoted said "his flesh did not decay." That's in line with Jesus only staying dead for a few days.

1. There is gratuitous evil, which entails the falsity of god. 
   

When you say that gratuitous evil causes more harm than good, I assume you are referring to human suffering

the claim to Gods existence, given his expansiveness would impact literally everything else in the universe

Are you sure claims like that require extraordinary evidence? "Reality is real" has implications for everything in the universe, yet I think we're perfectly rational in accepting that without extraordinary evidence. Not to mention that "God doesn't exist" holds implications for everything in the universe, so everything other than agnosticism (per your framework) requires extraordinary evidence to accept.

p1.If a body is dead, decomposition will occur. 

Flesh takes a few weeks to decay. The Bible doesn't say that Jesus stayed dead for weeks; in fact, it says the opposite.

Evil comes about from more ways than just free will. 

Evil doesn't mean "bad." Evil means "immoral" which requires someone to make an immoral decision. If by gratuitous evils, you simply mean bad things happening, then this doesn't contradict the Christian position.

extraordinary beliefs require extraordinary evidence

Extraordinary means "highly unusual." Why do unusual claims require unusual evidence? Why not evidence of any sort? Most people believe in God, so atheism is the more unusual position anyway.

Biblical testimony actually supports its falsity. 

p1.If a body is dead, decomposition will occur. 

p2. Jesus has never experienced decomposition. (Acts 2:31: His flesh did not experience decay)

p3. Jesus never died. 

c1. Jesus did not resurrect 

Ergo, Christianity is false. 

Just because his flesh did not decay, doesn't mean he didn't die. God preserved his body. Look at the context of that verse. 

• Resurrection didn't happen. 
  

There isn't any concrete factual evidence that the resurrection of Jesus Christ did happen, but there is a lot of evidence to support it. 

• The problem of gratuitous evil. 
  

If God stopped evil, he would take away our free will to choose, and in turn take away our ability to truly love him. 

• Epistemic bar is too high such that practically nothing would convince me. 
  

Wouldn't just that alone convince you? This statement somewhat confuses me. 

• Resurrection didn't happen. 
  
• Has not been demonstrated that our universe exhibits signs of either teleology nor a singular beginning. 
  
• The problem of gratuitous evil. 
  
• Epistemic bar is too high such that practically nothing would convince me. 
  

I'm not sure- i kinda got disillusioned with debating, its has more to do with oration than reasoning- enough of my votes told me that. Now, obviously reasoning matters-truly it does- but people don't really care about the truth in debates-at least not the voters- no they care about who can appear more truthful and convincing.

Fundamentally that doesn't jive with my principles.

Solipsism generally holds that only the self can be known to exist. But just because something is possible does not mean it is likely. If solipsism is false, it makes sense that the universe seems to have consistent laws and that past experiences are consistent with future experiences. Dreams, in contrast, barely make any sense and rarely remain consistent. So if humans were brains in a vat, I think the probability of our experiences being consistent with an outward reality would be very low.

I am not special pleading because I am utilising the most common understanding of a term

• You've already conceeded that popular usage does not altar the validity of different, even contrary meanings.
  

So are you conceding then that gender is conceptually incoherent? If not then what is the point of this red herring? 

• I have said before: the coherence of the concept relies on the validity of the personal experience, which I do not judge and cannot perceive.   Just I would call a king "your majesty" and respect a nation's right to have a king on the basis of personal sovereignty alone without judgement or analysis, I would call a woman a man if she asks me to, whether or not I find the alteration sincere or convincing.
  

What is the symetry breaker between this and identifying as 6 foot tall?  

• I don't know what symmetry you are believing in.  I don't believe all or even most social constructs are bound by the physical.
  

If identification is a valid means of identifying an individuals attributes, just as it is in gender, can we apply the standard to age and height? 

• People tell me deluded lies about their age and height almost daily.  I don't try to take their rights from them.
  

So if a female is someone who identifies as a female, could tell me what it is that they are identifying as given as how you have just used female to define female? 

• gender identity (countable and uncountable, plural gender identities)
  

1. (psychology) A person's internal sense of self as belonging to a particular gender or genders, or to no gender.
   

Look I know you have no intellectual originality, but citing dictionaries doesn't actually answer the question I am asking.

• You aren't asking the questions, Lxam. is.  He asked Liberals to define a woman.  Liberals root their opinion in science, academics, medicines, maximum freedom and liberty for all
  

Lxan may have instigated the question what is a woman, but I asked you a question, that is, "if a female is someone who identifies as a female, could tell me what it is that they are identifying as given as how you have just used female to define female?".

• I didn't. 
  

• what part of the trans female vlogger makes them female/woman to which you gave a definition of gender, the mistake being you giving me a definition of the category and not the thing.
  

• The answer was plain:  self-identity  as female/woman
  

female (not generally comparable, comparative femaler or more female, superlative femalest or most female)

1. Belonging to the sex which typically produces eggs (ova), or to the gender which is typically associated with it. [from 14th c.] quotations ▼female authors, the leading male and female artists, a female bird cooing at a male, intersex female patients, a trans female vlogger
   
2. Characteristic of this sex/gender. (Compare feminine, womanly.) quotations ▼stereotypically female pastimes, an insect with typically female coloration
   
3. Tending to lead to or regulate the development of sexual characteristics typical of this sex.the female chromosome;   estrogen, the primary female sex hormone, is produced by both females and males
   
4. (grammar, less common than 'feminine') Feminine; of the feminine grammatical gender. quotations ▼
   
5. (of bacteria) Lacking the F factor, and able to receive DNA from another bacterium which does have this factor (a male). quotations ▼
   
6. (figuratively) Having an internal socket, as in a connector or pipe fitting. [from 16th c.] 
   

So a female can be somebody claiming to belonging to the gender associated with producing eggs.  i.e. a trans vlogger

So what Lxan may or may not have asked is absolutely irrelevant. 

• If we are done with the OP then I am done with this forum.
  

You referred to a female as something you can self identify as, meaning a female is someone who identifies as a female.

• False.  I used my usual go-to dictionary to answer Lxam's question directly.  Liberals have no problems with humans taking control of their identities and demanding validition for any claim that does not trample on the rights of others.
  

Ok so now I know you're lying, because I asked what it is about the trans female vlogger which makes them female to which you stated and I quote "The answer was plain:  self-identity as female/woman". So the thing which makes the female vlogger a female is self-identity, that is to say, given the condition they believe they are a female, they are thus a female. So if that is the condition, as you have forced yourself into, then I ask - what exactly is it that they are self identifying as? 

• what lie, asshole?
  

-->

@<<<oromagi>>>

my definition is simply the one which is most commonly used in all circumstances. 

• but not the only definition and this word has more than one meaning.
  

But they can't have claims which are contradictory. You still don't understand. 

• There's nothing to understand.  You are special pleading some contradiction that your own sources refute.
  

You can't "claim" you are a female any more than you can claim you are 6 foot tall. 

• That is your belief.  The facts are that in modern American society,  people sometimes claim they are female in a legal, social sense.
  

The fact that there are people in modern American society doing it doesn't make it philosophically or conceptually coherent.

• There are many social constructs that are not conceptually conherent.  Monarchies are not philosophically coherent.  Trumpists are not philosophically coherent.   That does contradict the dictionary definiton of Monarch or Trumpist.
  

What is the symetry breaker between this and identifying as 6 foot tall?  

• I don't know what symmetry you are believing in.  I don't believe all or even most social constructs are bound by the physical.
  

So if a female is someone who identifies as a female, could tell me what it is that they are identifying as given as how you have just used female to define female? 

• gender identity (countable and uncountable, plural gender identities)
  

1. (psychology) A person's internal sense of self as belonging to a particular gender or genders, or to no gender.
   

Look I know you have no intellectual originality, but citing dictionaries doesn't actually answer the question I am asking.

• You aren't asking the questions, Lxam. is.  He asked Liberals to define a woman.  Liberals root their opinion in science, academics, medicines, maximum freedom and liberty for all
  

You referred to a female as something you can self identify as, meaning a female is someone who identifies as a female.

• False.  I used my usual go-to dictionary to answer Lxam's question directly.  Liberals have no problems with humans taking control of their identities and demanding validition for any claim that does not trample on the rights of others.
  

Even the dictionary definition you cite is actually wrong because I didn't ask for your definition of gender identity.  

• Not just my dictionary definition but you are claiming most popular dictionary definitions of the past 30 years are wrong because they don't satisfy you.
  

Not at all, I merely observe biological facts, respected by scientists, archeologists etc. You on the other hand fight against first wave feminists, cherishing archetypes not only as desirable ways to act, but as things which actually constitute what a woman is. 

• False.  Even first wave Feminists resented being reduced to biological roles.
  

But I am not reducing them to biological roles - I am observing biological facts.

• ....and demanding that women adjust their self-conception according to those facts.
  

I'm sure first wave feminists wouldn't want men in their bathrooms

• Some prominent feminists did, in fact.  Most women's public stalls required a payment in coin, decades after men's stalls gave up the practice.  First generation feminists argued that pay toilets limited women's access to the public and argued that free, unisex public bathrooms would increase women's freedom.
  

it's roots are incoherent. 

• Not to Feminists, it ain't and not to liberated gay people like me, it ain't.  We understand completely how acknowledging a fellow citizen's right  to be authentic and radical in one's gender identity in spite of the long traditions patriarchs enforced with extreme violence strengthens our validity within the American franchise.  Marriage is a social construct and you can make all kinds of arguments about irrelevancy to the babymaking function of human families but you can't deny the increase in franchise and safety and visibilities LGBTQ people enjoyed as soon a that social construct absorbed our participation.  Likewise, we owe the trans citizen the same full franchise and absorbtion and expect to enjoy only increase freedom and increased participation as the result of that new definition.
  

my definition is simply the one which is most commonly used in all circumstances. 

• but not the only definition and this word has more than one meaning.
  

You can't "claim" you are a female any more than you can claim you are 6 foot tall. 

• That is your belief.  The facts are that in modern American society,  people sometimes claim they are female in a legal, social sense.
  

If it were the case that rock referred two antithetical ideas within a single discipline, then there would be a contradiction. 

• But our multiple meanings of woman, gender, female, etc don't apply to the same discipline.  
  

So if a female is someone who identifies as a female, could tell me what it is that they are identifying as given as how you have just used female to define female? 

• gender identity (countable and uncountable, plural gender identities)
  

1. (psychology) A person's internal sense of self as belonging to a particular gender or genders, or to no gender.
   

Not at all, I merely observe biological facts, respected by scientists, archeologists etc. You on the other hand fight against first wave feminists, cherishing archetypes not only as desirable ways to act, but as things which actually constitute what a woman is. 

• False.  Even first wave Feminists resented being reduced to biological roles.
  

But it would be wrong to describe someone as objectively funny, given the innately subjective measure of comedy. 

• Wrong?  really?  Look, we refer to comedians as funny all the time, in spite of our understanding that humor is subjective.  Even if we don't find a comedian funny, we don't take away that comedian's right to advertise as funny as refer to oneself as a funny person.  LIkewise, the subjectivity of the trans person's claim is baked in to the usage.  Even if we don't find a claim to womanhod particularly persuasive, proper social conduct is nevertheless to to respect the claim as valid.
  

Let's also agree that adult human female remains the primary definition for woman.

• Settle down with the heirarchies.  It about matching meaning to context, it not a supremacy of  one meaning dominating another.  Jeez.
  

Let's also agree that the "context" deference does nothing to bolster the coherence of your position - if two definitions stand in contest, the contradiction ought to be resolved. 

• Let's recall that my position is that people have a certain right to claim their identities as valid which right other people need and ought not to disrespect
  

And does this progressive definition of female not undermine biology, zoology and any characterisation in which a partition between female and male exist? 

• Does the progressive definition of rock as a musical genre undermine geology?
  

So the only criteria for being a female/woman is if you identify with being a female/woman? Surely this idiocy is not what you are suggesting. 

• It was not my suggestion.  Rather it Feminism that made this assertion.  It was also 5 out of 8...
  

 You assert that a woman is both an adult human female and also a social label you identify with. These cannot be simultaneously true, for it is conceivable that, in the same context someone can be both an adult human female and also not associate with these labels.

• Yes and sometimes you can have coffee for your coffee.  Both meanings can be simultaenously true in the same context.
  
• This claim strikes me as lunacy.
  

There are many, many problems with your shallow concept of this "social roles" view. One is that not all people you would call women identify with these labels. Seems rather sexist of you to reduce women into these "social expectations".

• Seems even more sexist of you to reduce women to their tits.  Reduction or no, the principle is Feminist in origin and long fought for as a necessary right for women.
  

The second is the problem of that you have actually confused feminine and woman. You define woman as someone abiding by certain social parameters, but how would you define feminine? 

• Same way I define most words.
  

The third is of course that you cannot identify an individual based purely on subjective B-properties,

• I don't know what B-properties mean
  
• I have identified people as funny without much difficulty. 
  

• Not if you don't understand that words have more than one legitimate context, you don't.
  
• Let's agree that since between us we found 5 excellent lexicographic sources that confirm that WOMAN is an appropriate noun for transwomen and zero lexiographic sources that deny that the noun WOMAN applies to transwomen, that proper usage in the modern English language permits transwomen to be referred to as women.
  

So what does it mean to be a female per the gender description?   So what part of the trans female vlogger makes them female? 

• From WIktionary:   Identification as a man, a woman, or something else, and association with a (social) role or set of behavioral and cultural traits, clothing, etc; a category to which a person belongs on this basis. (Compare gender role, gender identity.) [from 20th c.] 
  

Ok three problems. First is that you completely dodged, in that I asked for a definition of female not gender, implying a confusion between your sex and gender doctrine.

• I'll leave the doctrine to you nosy busybodies.  I'm just advocating for the use of the most respectful, inclusive language available and trying to figure out why such respect engrages the MAGA lads.
  

• You asked "what does it mean to be a female per the gender description..  You call it a dodge but I guess you are going to have to explain how.  I gave you a definition of gender that explains that one correct meaning of being of female gender is to identify as a woman in  a socio-cultural context.  That is as direct an answer as I can fathom 
  

I asked for the "gendered" conception of female as a trap, which you fell entirely in because gender is not applicable to female,

• Let's call that a part of your religious belief since the lexicographic sources seem to agree that FEMALE  is the gender which is typically associated with  the sex which typically produces egg.  What trap? 
  

• The answer was plain:  self-identity  as female/woman is to female/woman as coffee bean is to coffee.
  

So we therefore have two contradictory definitions of woman - notice also how the most common definition of woman mentions nothing about association with roles. My problem is this. We have two definitions which lie in contest. How do we decide which is better when they are in contest? For example, if someone who fulfils  the adult female human criteria, but associate with the social roles of a man, are they still a woman? What about vice versa? 

• Again, you just don't seem to be familiar with English language dictionaries.  Many words may have entirely contradictory definitions, depending on context.
  
• To SCREEN something can mean to conceal or to show off depending on the context.
  
• To SANCTION can mean to approve or punish depending on the context.
  
• To RENT can mean to buy or to sell, depending on the context.
  
• A BILL can mean either payment or invoice, depnding on the context.
  
• An APOLOGY can mean contrition or defense, depending on the context.
  
• A WOMAN can mean "pussies only"  or "pussy irrelevant," depending on the context.
  

Unfortunately for you, my definition is the status quo, appearing as the first entry from a couple reputable sources. (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8) 

• Words often have more than one meaning.  The most popular usage does not confer increased legitimacy.  Legitmacy is according to semantic context.  4 of your 8 sources explicitly state that a trans woman may be properly referred to as a woman.
  

Oh I see, so there are two "parts" to the definition of female, that of belonging to the sex, as identified through ova, and also this weird gender one.

So what does it mean to be a female per the gender description?   So what part of the trans female vlogger makes them female? 

• From WIktionary:   Identification as a man, a woman, or something else, and association with a (social) role or set of behavioral and cultural traits, clothing, etc; a category to which a person belongs on this basis. (Compare gender role, gender identity.) [from 20th c.] 
  

woman (plural women)

1. An adult female human. quotations ▼
   
2. (collective) All female humans collectively; womankind. quotations ▼
   
3. A female person, usually an adult; a (generally adult) female sentient being, whether human, supernatural, elf, alien, etc. quotations ▼
   
4. A wife (or sometimes a fiancée or girlfriend). quotations ▼
   
5. A female person who is extremely fond of or devoted to a specified type of thing. (Used as the last element of a compound.) quotations ▼
   
6. A female attendant or servant.
   

association with a (social) role or set of behavioral and cultural traits

• It is regrettable you don't understand how dictionaries work.
  
• Notice how different the dictionary definition is from yours.  Then wonder why.
  

Adjective 

female (not generally comparable, comparative femaler or more female, superlative femalest or most female)

1. Belonging to the sex which typically produces eggs (ova), or to the gender which is typically associated with it. [from 14th c.] quotations ▼female authors, the leading male and female artists, a female bird cooing at a male, intersex female patients, a trans female vlogger
   
2. Characteristic of this sex/gender. (Compare feminine, womanly.) quotations ▼stereotypically female pastimes, an insect with typically female coloration
   
3. Tending to lead to or regulate the development of sexual characteristics typical of this sex.the female chromosome;   estrogen, the primary female sex hormone, is produced by both females and males
   
4. (grammar, less common than 'feminine') Feminine; of the feminine grammatical gender. quotations ▼
   
5. (of bacteria) Lacking the F factor, and able to receive DNA from another bacterium which does have this factor (a male). quotations ▼
   
6. (figuratively) Having an internal socket, as in a connector or pipe fitting. [from 16th c.] 
   

Notice that dictionary says that human biology is only relevant to half of primary definition.  A biological man who identifies as the GENDER assoicated with biological woman is also properly referred to as FEMALE, according to the dictionary.  Notice how Wiktionary includes the specific example:  "a trans female vlogger."

I really think you are just being deliberately obtuse.

Wait this is an all or nothing dichotomy -

• says who?
  

I mean there is only one sense of "WOMAN",

• False.  As you've just seen, Wiktionary finds at least six senses of the word.
  

and that is one where they are an adult human female.

• And another six senses of FEMALE
  

So either a trans man is a woman, or they aren't, there isn't really a third option. 

• I'll repeat the question: says who?  Wiktionary says there are at least twelve.
  

• False.
  
• In POST #2, I defined a WOMAN as:
  

1. An adult female human. quotations ▼
   
2. (collective) All female humans collectively; womankind. quotations ▼
   
3. A female person, usually an adult; a (generally adult) female sentient being, whether human, supernatural, elf, alien, etc. quotations ▼
   
4. A wife (or sometimes a fiancée or girlfriend). quotations ▼
   
5. A female person who is extremely fond of or devoted to a specified type of thing. (Used as the last element of a compound.) quotations ▼
   
6. A female attendant or servant.
   

So everything you said here is irrelevant because it doesn't prove how a transgender man, who is a female/woman per your own definition, can be a male/man. 

• False.  I just explained you many way in which a tran man is no female which direct answer you falsely ignored as irrelevant.  If you are going to dodge, dodge honestly.
  

All you have to do is

1. re-read the dictionary definition I provided in POST
   
2. notice how very different it is from your aggressively over-narrow, pig-headed definition and
   
3. comprehend that difference
   

Wait this is an all or nothing dichotomy -

• says who?
  

either all women are female or they are not.

• That's not my experience.  In the real world, men and women come in every shade of the masculine/feminine rainbow.
  

In what way/scenario is a trans man not a woman, per the wiktionary definition. 

• When female is defined by sex but not gender
  
• i.e. "Everyone with tits must now leave the room."
  
• When female is determined by feminine character.
  
• i.e.  "And now if the ladies would like to take a moment to powder their noses..."
  
• When woman is defined as a wife, fiancee or girlfriend
  
• i.e.  " I'd say she's doing a woman's hardest job: juggling wolves." -Rear Window
  
• When woman is defined a female person who is extremely fond of or devoted to a specified thing
  
• i.e. "You might like "Real Housewives" but I'm more of a "Sex and the CIty" woman, myself."
  
• When woman is defined as a female attendent or servent
  
• i.e.  " My woman comes in on Tuesdays to clean."
  

why it would benefit society

WIKTIONARY:

Noun[edit]

woman (plural women)

1. An adult female human.
   
2. (collective) All female humans collectively; womankind. 
   
3. A female person, usually an adult; a (generally adult) female sentient being, whether human, supernatural, elf, alien, etc. 
   
4. A wife (or sometimes a fiancée or girlfriend). 
   
5. A female person who is extremely fond of or devoted to a specified type of thing. (Used as the last element of a compound.) 
   
6. A female attendant or servant. 
   

• Transitioning is the medical prescription for acute gender dysphoria.  Americans have no more right to question the utility of that doctor's recommendation than we do questioning the utility of offering chemotherapy to a 90 year old or the utility of educating the autistic. 
  

• My argument, backed by all the major dictionaries, is that term "Transgender ideology" is a only  right-wing slur and "Transgenderism" is just the state of being transgendered.   After asking six or seven times, nobody has given me a cogent example of a transgender ideology publicly expressed by advocates.  YFL begins this conversation with a call to eradicate an ideology but under examination, the only objection seems to be trans people referring to themselves using terms he does not approve of- that is, YFL believes that the First Ammendent is reserved for approved speech only and (at least under some conditions) unapproved speech may be lawfully "eradicated." 
  

• Sex and gender being distinctly different and separate phenomena
  
• Gender being an identity- Identity being determinate of reality
  
• Existence being something that can be experienced independent of material reality or essence
  

Yes, pointing out rare exceptions does imply the commonality of a standard; but when trying to say therefore deviation outright does not exist because it only rarely occurs, it becomes self defeating. The same logic means anyone who ever claimed a dog bit them is lying, since it's very rare for dogs to bite, therefore it's impossible for dogs to bite (Lxam could find no defense for his logic leading to this conclusion).

Going to his arm example, if he claimed all people have two arms, it would easily be disproven due to amputees and such. Were it just most, fine, the vast majority of people have two arms, but the exception that proves the rule does not deny the existence of the exception.

You're speaking of sex, not gender. 

Rare doesn't mean non-existent. You might as well say it's absolutely impossible for dogs to bite, since it only rarely happens.

1. Lack of evidence 
   
2. Epistemic impossibility of proving an infinite being 
   
3. Evidential and logical problem of evil
   

 I will not get into that conversation right now, because it is a long argument.