"What is a woman?"

My personal favorite response to that question is “a person who covers their drink when you enter the room”

I’m stealing both of these.
Also trying to workshop::
Oh they don’t have them on your planet?
- I like it, but that's like a 1960s sitcom tier insult. It's too cute to infuriate.
"Someone who chooses the bear over you."

I like "Well, I'm a straight male, so anything that turns me on is a woman, ma'am."

Name totally checks out.
Ooooh, that's so subtle and brilliant, they'll be destroyed for life! Added bonus is it zings for all the alphabet.

Seems like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

They're not honestly curiously asking anything.

They tried to do a gotcha. Badly. And got gotcha'ed for it.
One question can't be "sealioning". Sure they aren't curiously looking for an answer, but that's not what sealioning is. Click your own link.
- I saw a further video of them doing this type of thing before.
  No need to be a douchebag.

The ftm equivalent is "What is a man?" And the proper response is "A miserable little pile of secrets".

Alternative responses:

"Yeah, it makes sense that you wouldn't know."
"A human. Did you seriously not know that?"
"Are you coming on to me?"

Are you coming on to me?”
I've actually used "I'm flattered, but I'm not into guys, sorry." and when immediately he got pissy and insisted he isn't gay and wasn't asking me out, "It's okay, you don't have to hide who you are, I'm simply not interested." and at that point my patience and certainty they wouldnt try to deck me were out the door, along with myself.
A musical theater performance was probably not the best place for the guy to be attempting to ragebait.
10/10 responses, I'd add in "If you have to ask, maybe you should get out more" which I guess is similar to "Makes sense you wouldn't know"
Your first option is best. Insulting comeback that isn't open-ended. It ends it so you can move on. The other options are asking for a response, including the OP one.
You could always go jeopardy style of "what is someone who doesn't want to sleep with you"

Is the answer not “A miserable little pile of secrets”?

Then men are no different.
I'd say "A slightly less miserable pile of secrets because they are generally more in tune with their emotions" but that doesn't exactly roll off the tongue
I believe that would in fact be a man.
But enough talk. Have at you!

Personally I think the "woke" definition of a woman (if there even is one) is much more straightforward than the alternative. This idea that the left "can't define a woman" is absurd projection - the very people who ask this question are the ones who can't define it without having to make 100s of exceptions.

yep "someone who identifies as a woman" doesn't need to have caveats. every biological argument has to have many.
- Im trans, but this only works if you never rule out outliers, which is something a scientific term like female and its counterpart should be doing. There is a normal or default or whatever word youd prefer

What are three douchebags doing at the DNC? I’ve seen pics/vids of this idiot & the weirdo beard one w the costume Matt Walsh & then the undercover boss my pillow guy, also in costume. Ragebait, I assume?

Yes. But imagine the screaming if they hadn't been allowed in.
- Okay. I imagined it. It gave me happiness. What next?
Covertly donating to Democratic party by buying the merch?

Language is an imperfect medium with inherent limitations, intended to convey thoughts from the mind of one person to another. Thus, context is critical. The tragedy of humans not being telepathic.

A large portion of this argument is between two factions trying to have a complex discussion regarding at least four different things using only two words; male and female. The discussion however expands to biology, stereotypes, gender norms, rights, etc.

To me, everyone arguing is a moron for trying to have a discussion without first agreeing on axioms and vocabulary. Male and female are not enough words for a discussion involving this many variables.

It's like, hey, please reconcile general relativity, quantum mechanics, and metaphysics using only X and Y. It just screams absurdity.

You might want to look at Wittgenstein.
In his early work he went hard on this approach, and insisted that "hey philosophy is dumb", just agree on the definitions and then chase through the implications.
In his later work he realised that this is impossible. Words have contextual meaning that is revealed by their usage and you can't nail down full and complete definitions in advance.
What you're talking about absolutely can and will never work. We have tried it and seen it fail.
- The general point is that the "what is a woman" question is still word games rather than an honest attempt at finding truth and understanding
- Yes exactly. "What is a chair?" These semantic boundaries may seem annoying and pedantic to explore at first, but can be pretty interesting once examined especially at a neurolinguistic level.
Yeah, let's spend the next 3 days hashing out all our vocabulary so we could have an argument...
I get the idea and I agree that people who won't come to the same understanding of words and concepts cannot have a discussion about a topic that uses those words and concepts. But if you think anyone is going to sit down and be "First we must get our axioms and vocabularies in sync" you're dreaming.
A practical approach is to assume people have roughly the same understanding of vocabulary so you could start the discussion. When discrepancies present themselves that's when you shift to finding a common understanding of axioms, concepts, words or whatever you want to call them. Morons are the people who refuse compromise on anything they believe in (including axioms and vocabulary).

It isn't for me to define, and there are more important things in life to focus on.

A "woman" is a label. It's a social construct.

As such, while you and I may have some idea of what we think a woman is, it's not really something that can be given a concrete definition the way these people seem to think it needs.

The meta of gender is simply the way we see eachother and not something that can be measured. It's felt.

It's a lot like trying to build a concrete definition for intelligence. What is intelligence? How can it be measured? IQ tests are one way, but they're pretty much universally regarded as inaccurate at best.

Whatever intelligence is, these rage baiters don't have it.

I agree. the only thing that we can say scientifically is that someone has a specific amount of traits we have associated with the social label 'woman'. These traits are biologically speaking primarily related to reproduction and which role one would be able to fulfill the most effectively. Which does leave room for being able to fulfill both reproductive roles in some way or another.
Our social needs to mark ourselves and others as one of the two is deeply ingrained, but as it's such a grey area under the hood it would make sense to have a more fluid relationship with the topic.
- Gender helps when the surgeon cuts into the abdomen and wants better than 50/50 odds on what to expect on the other side.

Here is the answer to that question:

Until recently, a woman was defined as someone who was born a biological female.

Now, as definitions change, a woman is defined as a person who identifies with the role of the previous definition of woman.

Language is descriptive, not prescriptive.

That's not what the definition has changed to. Women can be women without identifying with that traditional role. A woman is someone who identifies as a woman. I am a woman, and I certainly don't identify with the role of a traditional woman.
- I’d quibble slightly and argue that there’s a strong case that gender is also performative so if society generally deems you a woman, you’re also a woman.
- A woman is someone who identifies as a woman.
  This is a recursive statement which gets us nowhere. We need to establish that there is some kind of basis, which is the previous definition.
"Biological female" has always been a construct, not a social construct but a scientific one.
Little known fact is that "gender" was adopted initially into parlance to try and rope off a certain arbitrary binary definition of sex before it was applied to social category. Biologically speaking "man" and "woman" was being shown to be way more vibes based than originally thought. An individuals chromosomes, hormonal balance, reproductive capability, outwardly visible genetalia and secondary sex characteristics were way more variable than a strict binary to the point where sex really was being looked at as more of spectrum. In a last ditch effort to preserve the idea of a sex binary the idea of a sort of model man and woman was derived as "gender" where everyone who didn't fit neatly into those arbitrary boxes was looked at as essentially a deviation from the norm instead of basically just being normal in and of themselves. Basically 2 out of every hundred people are born with some sort of intersex trait and there are likely more since a lot of people learn they have some sort of intersex trait by accident. Like there are "biological" men out there who have uteruses or overies just floating amongst their other organs completely undiscovered until they get some kind of medical imaging done that realizes that it's not just a benign tumour or a wonky bit of intestine.
When people say the the definition is a wobbly gray area they fully include the biological component. Even if you are talking about cis people there is no all encompassing biological archetype which doesn't exclude some cis women.
identifies with the role of the previous definition of woman.
So what is the present definition of a woman?
- A person who identifies with the role of someone who is historically a biological female

Reminds me of this https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/master-debater-both-guy

"master debator" kind of sounds like masturbater
- A cunning linguist once said

jordan petersons response, is literally perfect. "marry one and find out"

Unfortunately most of his braincells seem to no longer exist, but he has short second winds from time to time i suppose.

Literally perfect? Because you can't marry a man? Only lesbian marriages are valid?
- the question was literally "what is a woman" this is matt walsh we're talking about here, not only are lesbian/gay marriages completely irrelevant here, you're giving way too much credit to matt walsh.

"I'll take someone who wouldn't talk to you if they were trapped in an elevator with you for $500 Alex."

In my experience it's so they can listen to exactly nothing you say in response and then say "oh you've totally been brainwashed" before refuting points I never even came close to making.

"Someone you've never had consensual sex with."

Also watch if someone asks you what theft is. (Stupid taxation is theft with no good faith in sight.)

It's not going to win any bad faith arguments, but then again not much does.
- also the white circle represents the value you get from living in a society supported by the taxes you pay
When a Conservative doesn't pay their fair share of tax and uses loopholes and malicious tactics to ensure they don't pay their fair share of taxes
I haven't encountered that one yet, but it doesn't shock me that they try it.

The proper response to Charlie Kirk saying,'I'm married to a woman' is 'How long did the Koch's make her agree to it?'

And then the bullies kick your ass.

What is a woman? A fuzzy type.

Same as many many many many other categories previously thought crisp. Simple example: "living thing".

Beat the right with fuzzy facts and fuzzy logic.

This is going off the rails. Locking.

Charlie Kirk is married to a woman. Epic own, buddy 😂

I do not have to have human rights? 😢

Oh look, an ignorant person who thinks trans 12-year-olds regularly get surgery rather than puberty blockers and maybe hormones.
But your not caring about children committing suicide is noted.
- Hey, if it indeed reduces suicide, fine—even more reason for my indifference in them going for such procedures.
  
  Among the 104 youths (13-20 years) who participated, 63 were transmasculine individuals (60.6%), 27 transfeminine individuals (26%), 10 nonbinary or gender fluid individuals (9.6%), and 4 individuals who didn't know or did not respond to the gender identity question (3.8%).
  60.6% transgirls?
  Sylvia Plath on being a girl: https://youtu.be/1pTPuoGjQsI?t=982 (cued)
Gender is performative. Race is not.
- Which is why we celebrate Jenner and we scorn Dolezal.

Go ahead and define a woman for us then. Since you seem to know the definition.