I think the basic response to this especially in a legal setting where linguistics are of extreme importance is to respond with an extremely basic trap. Ask them what they mean by absolutely any word other than something related to gender. If they respond with what is essentially the dictionary definition then you have successfully trapped them, if we are to agree on the meaning of any words we must have a common definition of them, if you choose to source some words from one dictionary and others from another than we cannot communicate in any meaningful way. Currently male and female are very well defined words in any dictionary, and even Trans people agree that when they start changing things the intention is to change from a very definite thing "male or female" to another very definite thing "female or male". The funny thing too is that if they try to escape this trap by saying that they cannot define any word, then they have stepped right into the trap once again, as now nothing they say means anything, all terms they use are undefined and thus are simply grunts and groans. So there we go, we have caught them in a linguistic trap, they cannot communicate in any meaningful way if they want to change definitions of words willy nilly.
I think it's quite obvious she's trying to pull a "Gotcha" trap linguistically by bringing up Trans people, but what she doesn't realize is that this is the equivalent of her diving head on into the mother of all linguistical traps: not having a commonly agreed definition for any word! What language is she even speaking in? Some weird new fangled English?
“Never believe that [redacted] are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The [redacted] have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
I think the basic response to this especially in a legal setting where linguistics are of extreme importance is to respond with an extremely basic trap. Ask them what they mean by absolutely any word other than something related to gender. If they respond with what is essentially the dictionary definition then you have successfully trapped them, if we are to agree on the meaning of any words we must have a common definition of them, if you choose to source some words from one dictionary and others from another than we cannot communicate in any meaningful way. Currently male and female are very well defined words in any dictionary, and even Trans people agree that when they start changing things the intention is to change from a very definite thing "male or female" to another very definite thing "female or male". The funny thing too is that if they try to escape this trap by saying that they cannot define any word, then they have stepped right into the trap once again, as now nothing they say means anything, all terms they use are undefined and thus are simply grunts and groans. So there we go, we have caught them in a linguistic trap, they cannot communicate in any meaningful way if they want to change definitions of words willy nilly.
I think it's quite obvious she's trying to pull a "Gotcha" trap linguistically by bringing up Trans people, but what she doesn't realize is that this is the equivalent of her diving head on into the mother of all linguistical traps: not having a commonly agreed definition for any word! What language is she even speaking in? Some weird new fangled English?
-Sartre