The attempted definition is certainly circular, and does not mention or imply any moral or ethical proposition. That bit of Hume's Treatise is irrelevant, I'm afraid.
Depends on the framework (see 3&4):
AI Overview
Whether “woman” is a circular definition depends entirely on the framework being used to define it. A definition is circular when it uses the term being defined as part of the explanation (e.g., defining a woman simply as "someone who is a woman"). 1]
The concept can be explored across four main perspectives:
1. The "Gender Identity" Perspective
Definition: "A woman is an adult who identifies as a woman."
Logical Status: This is a circular definition. Because it relies on the term being defined to complete the explanation, it essentially forms an infinite logical loop that explains nothing about what the category actually is. 1, 2]
2. The "Biological/Sex" Perspective
Definition: "An adult human female."
Logical Status: This is non-circular, as it defines a woman by referencing distinct biological traits (e.g., chromosomes, gametes) rather than the word itself. However, debates often arise over the definitions of "adult" and "female," and whether this definition excludes individuals with differences in sex development (DSDs) or transgender women. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
3. The "Subjective/Internal Sense" Perspective
Definition: "An adult with an internal sense of being female."
Logical Status: This is non-circular because it uses the word "female" (referring to the sex category or internal identity) to define "woman," separating the definition from the word itself. 1, 2]
4. The Sociological and Historical Perspective
Definition: A fluid set of social roles, behaviors, and cultural expectations.
Logical Status: This perspective avoids circularity by defining the term through measurable cultural, historical, and behavioral attributes rather than a single absolute term. Because these traits change based on time and place, sociology often views "woman" as a complex category that defies a single, universal definition. 1, 2]
OK, you say, that gender exists is a subjective belief. And, perhaps (is this what you meant?), people say they believe in its existence because it accords with some of their values to do so.
I believe gender is a socially constructed category that results from the expression of human personality traits.
What is this gender of which you speak? Or, if you prefer, what does 'gender' mean?
Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours expressions, and identities of girls, women, boys, men, and gender-diverse people.
In asking what you mean by 'gender', I'm not asking an 'ought'-type question, am I? Same goes for 'woman', mutatis mutandis.
No question of the fact/value distinction here. Do you see?
Categorisation is an 'ought' because its socially constructed.