I can’t bring myself to be worried about the risks you see in that. Language has unexpected effects like that sometimes but for goodness sake. It’s the kind of thing that make you go ‘oh, I never noticed that!’ rather than ‘the ills of society can be traced to defining this word in such and such a way.’ Especially considering the concept we’re talking about here is slap bang in the middle of a contentious state of flux.
“It’s about how people treat you when you are percieved as a man or as a woman” does not define what that treatment is, it leaves that open. Pretty much the only actual prescriptive thing in the definition that I’ve seen anyone reallly want, is use of the corresponding pronoun.
This is kind of the core here. I ran across terms used by somebody the other day: sex eliminationist and gender eliminationist.
On the extreme of one side, the "sex eliminationist" view is that sex differences aren't important in society, and in order to have a more fair society and alleviate disadvantages for transgendered people, we should eliminate references to sex as a meaningful or important differentiator. Treatment of people should be based solely on how they present, and nothing else. Thus, the objective of "sex elimination" is to expand the concept of woman to include biological males, and expand the concept of man to include biological females.
On the extreme of the other side, the "gender eliminationist" view is that gender roles and expectations are artificial and constraining, and in order to have a more fair society and alleviate disadvantages for transgender people, we should eliminate references to gendered behavior and presentation. Treatment of people should be on their actions and behavior, but not in complete ignorance of the role sex plays in one's being. Thus, the objective of "gender elimination" is to expand the concept of male to include feminine behaviors and presentation, and to expand the concept of female to include masculine behaviors and presentation.
The ideal solution would hopefully be somewhere in the middle, but I do find myself more on the "gender eliminationist" side of things.
Partly, this is because by defining "woman" in terms of presentation, behavior, and gendered social norms, we reinforce those stereotypes... and those stereotypes are a material barrier to female equality. I don't want to reinforce the idiotic trope that "girls like pink things and lace and baby dolls and are quiet and well behaved and soft spoken". That stereotype hurts females.
It's also, however, because the "sex eliminationist" view doesn't leave much room for non-binary and gender non-conforming people. I think the "gender eliminationist" side of things provides a lot more bandwidth to support a spectrum of expressions and presentations, as well as providing a lot more breadth for effeminate gay men and butch lesbians.
