Actually this happens a fair bit. Take the word ‘disinterested’, which correctly means unbiased or not partisan. It has been so commonly misunderstood to mean the same as ‘uninterested’ that the old meaning has almost fallen out of usage and it is now pretty much accepted that it can be used to mean uninterested, because of that misunderstanding.
So are you acknowledging that the definition of woman that you propose is a change of definition? If not, how is this relevant? Yes some words have changed meaning over time. I believe criticize is another example. That does not suggest that we should consciously change the meaning of 'woman' to suit a minorities interests.
Just because it’s a concept that’s a bit fuzzy around the edges doesn’t mean it’s not useful.
Again, I don't see what point you are trying to make here? Yes there is fuzziness around many concepts. But that is irrelevant to this conversation which is not about fuzziness at the edges but a massive blob of confused ideology at the centre. For it to be a 'fuzzy edges' issue we'd need to start with a definition of the way you want to use the word 'woman'. But no-one is willing to provide one. Why is that?
I don’t think most of the issues you mention are caused by stating preferred pronouns, they’re caused by the fact that the gender binary is embedded in our language, alongside lots of beliefs and assumptions about men and women
I think you're making my point here. The gender binary you mention is created and perpetuated by the beliefs and assumptions made about men and women. It does not, and cannot exist outside of those assumptions - which you state to be 'alongside' the concept of gender. I agree that it's alongside. To accept your point of view we'd have to see it as central, as part of the actual core of the issue rather than alongside. If the assumptions are alongside as you suggest then we can change the gender binary by changing what is 'alongside' (which is what most feminists and GC people want). Your suggested course of action is actually embedding the binary thinking as it suggests that people who act in feminine ways are women and those who act in masculine ways are male.
We can’t control what other people think about us - when they use our name, refer to us using the pronouns they believe to be the correct ones, or look at us
You are completely missing the point. There is a vast sea between 'controlling what others think about us' and actively being forced to pick a box to put yourself in when none of the boxes are the right ones for you. To pick up on your example of bisexuality, imagine if you needed to tick a box to say you are either homosexual or heterosexual. Neither box describes you and although you can't control how others see you or think about you, this does not make it OK to ask people to put themselves in those inappropriate boxes. This is the exact position that most people are now being put in when they are pressurized to state preferred pronouns.
In addition, you seem to say that can't control the pronouns people believe to be the correct one. Why then have you been advocating for that exact position on this thread?
But we can all try to be more aware of the assumptions we’re making about other people when we interact with them, and consciously interrogate those assumptions and try not to let them affect the way we treat people.
Yes I agree. People who support gender ideology and those who worry about the damage it is doing all need to interrogate their assumptions. I honestly don't see much of that from gender ideologists. I don't really know what you mean by 'not letting that affect the way we treat people'. You seem to be suggesting that there is a way forward which is 'nice' to everyone?. There really isn't as the concerns people have about the damage gender ideology is doing are legitimate but despite the clear elucidation of those concerns, gender ideologists continue to see things differently. There are opposing interests at stake so there is no solution which works for everyone and lack of being able to find one is not evidence of people not interrogating their assumptions, rather it is a reflection of the complexity of the situation.
Overall I may have misunderstood but you seem to be saying that language evolves over time, there is always fuzziness about exact definitions and we need to be nice to people. If this is the rationale for the suggestion that we change the definition of 'woman' then I would suggest that it is so weak that it might suggest that you need to interrogate your own assumptions, with a particular focus on whose interests will actually be supported if we all (or a majority) agree to change the definition of women and how we would actually be able to talk about the inequality issues which affect biological women regardless of how they identify.