yoyou have to realize that there are ways to make definitions more inclusive without also rendering words utterly meaningless, righ> So wh make the definition specifically inclusive of the people you mention without making it just "anyone who says they are one is one"?

Because you'd inevitably spend time litigating and rehasing indivdual cases.

Could the definition lead to absurd results? Possibly. But the most likely scenario I can see those absurd results occuring is a straight man coming to explicitly try and make a point about it. And my reaction to that wouldn't be "Hey, this definition is the problem", it'd be "Wow, that guy's an asshole".