> "a woman is someone who thinks they're a woman" which is a clearly nonsensical recursive definition
This is a perfectly meaningful recursive definition.
This is a perfectly meaningful recursive definition.
You could claim that the word "woman" was chosen because it represents an existing concept that some people want to approximate because of their feelings, but a more appropriate response would be to point out that these feelings are factually incorrect. Maybe it's easier to see the absurdity if you consider a non-politicized version "a tree is someone who thinks they're a tree" (laughably wrong) or differently-politicized "a Jew is someone who thinks they're a Jew" (this is somewhat less incorrect, because it's referring to a social "fact" that can change, not a physical fact).
A conservative is someone who thinks they're a conservative, a centrist is someone who thinks they are a centrist. Other people can try to label you one way or another, but ultimately, you decide what you are. It's inherently self-referential.
> "a Jew is someone who thinks they're a Jew" (this is somewhat less incorrect)
But that's not incorrect at all, that is exactly how it works in real life. "A Christian is someone who believes they're a Christian", is a wholly true statement. Just as, "an atheist is someone who believes they are an atheist".
There's a bunch of these statements of identity that are, effectively, 100% self referential. No one can tell you who you are, ultimately you have to decide that for yourself.
> Maybe it's easier to see the absurdity if you consider a non-politicized version
It's not. Even in a non-political, meaningless context, it's 100% equally as self-referential.
Insert the "what is a sandwich" meme - https://talkthetalkpodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/sa...