It is entirely circular, as has been pointed out to you many times
It's no more circular than many other dictionary definitions, as I have actually demonstrated many times.
You aren't superior to me on this Eresh, you aren't the decider of unreasonable circularity, you don't "point things out to me" that somehow I have failed to spot.
You want it to be too circular to be acceptable. You want it to fall short of the standard required of a dictionary definition. But you can't ever demonstrate that it does, because if you actually hold it up in comparison to other word definitions (such as "literally", "adult" or "sandwich") it is just as useful and descriptive.
So until you wake up one morning with some actual words with which to refute this, I'm afraid the fact you think you're pointing out something to me is always going to fail to move me.
And imagine someone is allergic to dogs. And you say, I don't have a dog, I have a cat. You're allergic to dogs, that's fine, because I don't have one. But what you are not telling them is that you have the animal that 99% of the population call a dog.
...and if one day dog comes to be used by a large proportion of the population to mean housepets in general - so dogs AND cats - however "wrong" that may be, the dictionary will be updated to reflect that. And we'll find a new way to specify just those pets that were once the only breed described as dogs. That's how words evolve!
And actually it makes more sense for "woman" to evolve as a word than "dog", because when you're talking about the biology generally associated with being a woman "female" is the preferred term. "Woman" more often is used in a social context. But that's by the by because this whole derail is totally unnecessary.