The category of "woman" is something that men have defined - not as some kind of neutral descriptor of "female people" like many here seem to believe, but as an ideological categorisation of what they want female people to be.
That is simply and totally false. Otherwise how could entire women's movements under the banner woman's rights women's liberation , active over many decades, contain the manifestos that they do contain. Namely, that women - the sex category that has historically been oppressed by men and subjected to confining gender stereotypes, etc - must achieve social equality, an end to male violence, and the right to pursue their lives regardless of confining gender stereotypes.
You absolutely cannot deny that, linguistically, the term woman has been used by women to name a material sex category and to assert their own autonomous material reality and their rights.
And if you really, truly do believe that the term woman does not simply designate the material sex category, then why are you not campaigning for the introduction of a term that does designate this category, since clearly we cannot speak clearly of this category - or our rights - without naming it?
It is not the traditional use of the term woman that is "an ideological categorisation of what [men] want female people to be". It is the RE-definition of the term 'woman' by the so-called trans rights movement (essentially nothing more than a form of men's rights activism) that converts the term into an ideological one when it divorces 'woman' from its traditional meaning (adult human female) and recreates womanhood as an idea in men's heads, ie as a projection of men's own desires about the women they want to 'be' or screw or screw over.
That re-definition is not an organic evolution of language; it is a deliberate imposition, to deprive us of a term that defines the sex category to which we belong, so that we no longer have the conceptual framework to articulate the demands that womens rights movements have historically agitated for and to some extent achieved.
And reference to de Beauvoir's "women are not born but made" is not the gotcha you think it is. It is a perfectly unexeptional rhetorical statement, conveying the fact that the manner in which women experience themselves in a sexist society is created not simply from their biological starting point but from the social accretions to which that starting point is vulnerable. Time and again people pretend that they don't understand the idea of rhetorical forms of expression, just in order to shoehorn in a quote that - very superficially - gives them a momentary veneer of having said something that they can substantiate philosophically