Are the old meanings of the words woman and man redundant?

I believe this poster is just here to wind us up this morning with their faux innocent "Don’t trans people prefer to be referred to as just woman and accepted as actual Women". Unfortunately we're falling for it.

I prefer to be referred to as 'Goddess divine' and accepted as an actual 19 year-old, blonde, thin, Amazonian-heighted, multi-millionaire Swedish supermodel but so far no-one seems to be biting. Alas.

Bit early to be under your bridge isn’t it?

But we already have said other words: male and female.
Also, the biological sex has much to do with chromosomes, but to fit into female or male you need to have all the primary and secondary characteristics of said sex.
Most of us get a sex assigned at birth that matches our external genitalia and that is good enough for life.

Then, the whole of us, not just our biological self, is a girl or a boy, then a man or a woman. These words are more related to gender identity, as it goes further than biology.
It is not confusing. We do not need any further words for those who are happy with this setting.

Some people are not in agreement with the above regarding their own identity. And me, personally, I am fine with that and I have no problem refering to anyone as their preferred identity, pronouns and so on. If they want new words, so be it. I will do my best to learn them.
But.... I refuse to lose the terms woman and mother. Those are my preferred options and I am sticking with them.

No, they just think they're women.

Although that idiotic definition should be there at all, it is only the second definition, not the primary one, for the entry women.

The primary definition, as you say, is 'adult female human being'.

So how is it that you are suggesting that the primary definition should give way, and cede its meaning? Wouldn't it make sense for the secondary meaning (which is there as a result of top-down pressure, not as a result of an organic evolution of meaning) to be displaced -- by the already-existing and perfectly adequate term "transwoman" (defined as an adult male human who identifies as female)

No, because they aren't. They are men.

They, as a group, have XY chromosomes and a penis and testicles and, lacking a vagina or ovaries or breasts, are unable to bear or nurse children.

Gosh, you really do need to go back to Biology GCSE don't you OP !

You can't change sex. You can alter your appearance somewhat through surgery and the use of hormones, but you will always ultimately be the sex you were born as. A man is never going to grow ovaries or a womb, and likewise a woman will not start producing sperm. There's more to being a woman than having breasts and a crudely fashioned vagina. Don't even get me started on those men who don a wig and lipstick and think they're suddenly a woman 😡

The dictionary and news are wrong, but they’ll get there eventually.

People with DSDs don’t need new words to out them. They get along perfectly well knowing they are men and women with a health condition that impacts fertility.

Trans identities aren't about sex. They could get along perfectly well knowing they are men and women with a trans identity. And so could we. But some prefer to force the world to reorganise in their image. It won’t stick.

I'm probably being stupid but can't we use "man", "woman", "transgender man" and "transgender woman" to describe the groups? Would that cause offense? A transgender woman is a transgender woman etc etc...

Why is that the right thing to say? They aren’t women so it is wrong. Some dictionary’s updated their definitions recently, but I imagine they will change them back again with the Supreme Court ruling.

Whereabouts in the world are you, OP?

It's certainly an interesting thing to be fretting over at 06:15 on a Wednesday morning.

The definition in that specific edition of that specific dictionary is wrong and will be corrected at some point, if Cambridge Dictionary wish to continue to be regarded as an accurate reference.

News reporting is frequently wrong. Nothing new in that.

You can't redefine biology to suit the whims of some people. Man and Woman should mean exactly what they've always meant. If someone believes they are other than what they were born (not bloody assigned 😡) then the prefix 'trans' is there to identify their belief.

Don’t be daft. The trans movement would just take over those new words too.

We need to hold onto the real meaning of woman and man.

No, no confusion at all.

Woman = XX chromosomes, appropriate sex organs

Man = XY chromosomes, appropriate sex organs

Women will carry on having breasts and bearing children.....
Men will carry on growing beards and impregnating women....

as they have always done, or not if they choose. Men who pretend to be women are still men, and vice versa. Putting on a dress and lippy does not change scientific fact. Changing sex is not possible regardless of what some fool at the Cambridge Dictionary thinks.

How people choose to live their lives is completely their choice, but pretending black is white won't wash.

No.
A woman doesn't ever have a Y chromosome, because the presence of a Y chromosome indicates male.
Most women will be 'standard' XX, though Turners Syndrome women have either a partial or complete lack of the second X chromosome.
HTH

Trans identifying men don't magically change sex because they identify as something they are not. Male women are not a thing.

They're not women though. So no new words needed.

I think these faddy definitions are likely to be amended in light of recent legal clarifications and man and woman will remain as the nouns biological male and females.

No, we just need people like you to stop making nonsensical comments like "new words to define biology"

If a man told you he identified as a cow, would you take him seriously?