What meaning would that be then?
It has been long accepted in mainstream society that a person can be a biologically male adult and yet not a man.
Why is it such a stretch then to suppose that a person can be biologically female and also a man?
Your reasoning seems flawed to me.
Under some uses of the word, it was said that a person who is capable of producing sperm might not have some other necessary condition to be a man.
Therefore, you reason, a person who cannot produce sperm might be a man.
So, it seems that by some uses of the word, there are at least two necessary conditions to be a man, but since there are at least two, then a person who lacks one of them might still be a man? That's poor logic.
If you've followed these threads, you know this is all old ground. Whether phrased as definitions, or as necessary and sufficient conditions, or what have you, no one can provide me any definition of a man that includes men who can have babies, and which isn't a circular definition.
It always seems that in the end, those who try end up saying that arguments about definition are stupid, or that all definitions are circular because you have to use words to define words. It's sophomoric, but it happens.
